Starvation mode myth
FUZZBUZZ4
Posts: 334
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight-loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2 ¼ to 2 ½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.
While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Centre article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint).
Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilised, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.
http://www.weightwatchers.ca/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=32361&tabnum=1&sc=802&subnav=Science+Library:+The+Physics+of+Weight+Loss
Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight-loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2 ¼ to 2 ½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.
While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Centre article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint).
Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilised, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.
http://www.weightwatchers.ca/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=32361&tabnum=1&sc=802&subnav=Science+Library:+The+Physics+of+Weight+Loss
0
Replies
-
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight-loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2 ¼ to 2 ½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.
While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Centre article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint).
Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilised, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.
http://www.weightwatchers.ca/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=32361&tabnum=1&sc=802&subnav=Science+Library:+The+Physics+of+Weight+Loss0 -
Help me, Banks!! The little voices are starting up again!!0
-
Good information
0 -
Good post :flowerforyou:The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight-loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2 ¼ to 2 ½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.
While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Centre article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint).
Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilised, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.
http://www.weightwatchers.ca/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=32361&tabnum=1&sc=802&subnav=Science+Library:+The+Physics+of+Weight+Loss0 -
:flowerforyou:0
-
Some would contradict that as a myth saying that when fat replaces muscle as a result of "starvation" that the metabolism does in fact slow - here is something from netwellness.org, from the University of Cincinnati and Ohio State Univeristy
Question:
Hi, I`m a RD. Have a client that is in the starvation mode. Know your are supposed to not change amount of calories consumed but help them to eat differently. Not sure what this means. Not had a client like this in past. Also, know it will take ~ 6 months for this client regain an appetite. Client states not hungry. I`m out in an area with not a lot of access to information. Hope you can help me to help them. God Bless
Answer:
Thank you for your question. Many people think that starving themselves will lead to fast weight loss. A starvation diet does not mean the absence of food. It means cutting the total caloric intake to less than 50% of what the body requires. The body responds by using its own reserves to provide energy, and these reserves are not just the body`s extra fat. Initially, glycogen stores are broken down for energy. Glycogen is the storage form of carbohydrate in our body. There is little glycogen available so this energy source is depleted during the first hours of starvation. When glycogen is used, water is released which is noticed as a drop in weight on the scale. These labile stores are quickly replenished when feeding is resumed which is noticed by an increase in weight.
The individual`s initial weight when starting a starvation diet will dictate to what extent fat is lost. Those individuals who are not obese (Body Mass Index (BMI) < 30) will tend to lose their lean body mass more easily and quickly than those who are obese (BMI > 30). It is dangerous for these smaller individuals to go on a starvation diet because the lean mass that is lost may come from organs such as the heart. In the 1970`s there were several deaths resulting from starvation-type diets. Death is a rare side effect, though.
The more common problem resulting from starvation-type diets is the resultant weight regain. Weight is typically regained because there has not been a change in the lifestyle that led to the original weight gain. When the starvation diet is ended, the individual returns to the same old habits. The scale will indicate the weight regain, but it will not identify the composition of the added weight. When weight is regained, it is fat. When fat replaces the muscle mass that was lost during starvation, the metabolic rate (the number of calories needed to maintain the current weight) is decreased. The frustrated individual typically initiates another starvation-type diet only to continue this cycle.
To help an individual break this cycle, begin with a diet history, and help the client make some small changes. The goal should be 4 - 6 small meals/snacks that result in a balanced intake. Also get the patient started exercising. Weight training will be important for rebuilding the lost muscle mass. Increasing muscle mass and increasing aerobic exercise will help increase the appetite appropriately. Don`t forget to help the client identify a realistic weight loss goal. That goal should never exceed 10% of initial weight in a six-month period. After six months, the client should try to maintain the loss for a few months before considering further weight loss.0 -
Here's another from EHow
Introduction
When you're trying to lose weight, your main goal is to create a calorie deficit (burn more calories than you take in). If you burn 500 calories more than you eat everyday, your body will be forced to make up that 500 calorie shortfall from sources other than food - mainly body fat with the result being weight loss. The bigger your calorie deficit, the faster you'll lose weight. Some may ask, "Why not try to eat as little as possible?"
Instructions
Difficulty: Easy
Steps
1Step OneYour metabolism is like your body's power plant. The food you eat is fuel and your metabolism converts the food to energy (a very simplistic explanation). What would happen if you stopped delivering coal to a local power plant? The plant would have to scale back energy production unless it started getting more fuel.
2Step TwoJust like the power plant, when you drastically cut your calorie intake (fuel supply), your metabolism will slow down and burn less food to convert into energy. So what does this have to do with weight loss? When your calories are severely restricted, the body thinks it's entering a prolonged period of time without any food. Just like engineers at a power plant will shutdown energy production, your body will will work to conserve energy if you don't eat - mainly by slowing down your metabolism.
3Step ThreeThis is when you enter starvation mode. Long ago when our ancestors were hunters, food wasn't as readily available as it is today. Our body developed this starvation mechanism as a way to conserve body fat for the long periods of time humans went without food. The trigger to enter starvation mode back then was the same as it is today: an intake of very few calories.
4Step FourThis trigger fluctuates from person to person, but generally, starvation mode kicks in below 1,200 calories. When you go below 1,200 calories per day, your body will start hoarding energy. The effect will be a slowdown in the total amount of calories your body burns each day. Your weight loss will stop and even reverse.
5Step FiveThis trigger fluctuates from person to person, but generally, starvation mode kicks in below 1,200 calories. When you go below 1,200 calories per day, your body will start hoarding energy. The effect will be a slowdown in the total amount of calories your body burns each day. Your weight loss will stop and even reverse.
6Step SixTo make sure that you are eating the right amount, visit the calorie calculator (linked below under resources). Enter your age, height, weight and activity level to get an estimate of how many calories you burn each day. If your calorie deficit puts you under 1,200-1,400 calories, skip the calorie cutting and create a deficit by exercising more and increasing your activity level. If you're already experiencing signs of being in starvation mode, you need to increase your calorie intake.
7Step SevenFor more information on losing weight without starving yourself, visit the Advanced Guide to Dieting. You can also check out how others have successfully lost weight or share your own dieting experience at the diet forums. These tools can be found below under resources.0 -
By the way - my only point is that it hasn't been proven one way or the other that it's a myth, fact, or somewhere in between - I think it's somewhere in between based on body comp, whether it's done just by eating less or impacted by adding exercise, etc.0
-
Here is what I decided about all of this. I have talked to trainers and doctors on this subject. EVERYONE has a different opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I decided to do a science project. I tried three different things. I tried it eating every single exercise calorie and I wear a polar HRM so I feel like my count was quite accurate and I GAINED weight over the period of a month. I tried eating no extra calories and while I lost weight, my family wanted to be in a different room than me b/c I was ill as a hornet and lightheaded and dizzy. So since neither of those seem to work for me I tried eating some of my exercise calories. I aim for 1500 a day. Most days I have NO trouble eating this amount. Some days I might eat a little more I I am hungry and if I have exercised alot. This works for me.
So bottom line...NOBODY really knows for sure what is going to work for you. Do a science project and you be the guinea pig and YOU decide what is right for YOU!!0 -
I agree...we don't know!By the way - my only point is that it hasn't been proven one way or the other that it's a myth, fact, or somewhere in between - I think it's somewhere in between based on body comp, whether it's done just by eating less or impacted by adding exercise, etc.
But I can tell you when I had sugery on my mouth and could not eat solid foods for 14 days (nor was I even interested) I dropped weight like crazy. I was only taking in about 600-800 calories a day.
And guess what....when I went back up to 1200 calories...the weight did NOT come back. I had lost a total of 8lbs in 15 days.
The surgery was Feb 6th and everyone kept saying as soon as you started eating solid foods it will come back...it did not.0 -
Of course we all are aware that whether you decide to seek articles PRO or CON a certain subject, you will always find plenty with a simple google search. Just because you decide to read and agree with the PRO or CON doesn't make either of them more true than they actually are. I really can't tell if any of these articles are the truth about starvation mode, I trust people sharing their experience more than articles on this matter. So here is the best example I can think of:
This is from a blog I follow, this silly woman decided to do a cleanse on tea and watermelon. This is typically done up to 20 days from what I know but she got so excited to drop more pounds that she went on and on for a whole 92 days!!! Imagine 1 pound of watermelon has like a hundred calories and I don't think she has eaten more than 3-4 pounds a day... So at first she was indeed losing weight but what happened during the last days of her crazy 92-day cleanse is she gained 15 pounds?! I would like someone supporting the idea that starvation mode is a myth to try and explain why did this happen if she was at such a huge calorie deficit?
On the other hand the weight loss was indeed fast at the beginning of her "cleanse" and the weight gain happened towards the end of a 3 month period of severe undereating, so the way I see it is starvation mode does exist but it's not THAT EASY to enter into it, especially if you are just slightly undereating. So I have to join the previous opinions that the truth is out there and somewhere in between. Besides, just because some people are undereating without entering into starvation mode or just because someone made it alive through an insane 92-day cleanse doesn't mean you will be as lucky if you decide to starve yourself for the sake of losing weight, so please regardless of any article you ever happen to read, do always take good care of yourself. :flowerforyou:0 -
I like that idea because I did the exact same thing to see what works best for me.I do eat some of them sometimes but not all the time and its working out well for me .:flowerforyou:Here is what I decided about all of this. I have talked to trainers and doctors on this subject. EVERYONE has a different opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I decided to do a science project. I tried three different things. I tried it eating every single exercise calorie and I wear a polar HRM so I feel like my count was quite accurate and I GAINED weight over the period of a month. I tried eating no extra calories and while I lost weight, my family wanted to be in a different room than me b/c I was ill as a hornet and lightheaded and dizzy. So since neither of those seem to work for me I tried eating some of my exercise calories. I aim for 1500 a day. Most days I have NO trouble eating this amount. Some days I might eat a little more I I am hungry and if I have exercised alot. This works for me.
So bottom line...NOBODY really knows for sure what is going to work for you. Do a science project and you be the guinea pig and YOU decide what is right for YOU!!0 -
There is plenty of clinical data to show that it's a myth. In the famous starvation studies done in the 50s, they had normal weighted men on a starvation diet for months and they all continued to lose weight right until the end.By the way - my only point is that it hasn't been proven one way or the other that it's a myth, fact, or somewhere in between -
It's not a question of whether or not you will lose weight if you have a calorie deficit. You will. The question is whether you are doing it in a healthy way and are you getting a good return on your investment.
For example, in the article quoted above, it says that on 1000 calories, the person would lose 2 pounds a week and, on 500 calories, he'd lose 2.25 to 2.5. For most people, the cons of only eating 500 calories a day far outweigh the pros of losing an extra .25 to .5 lb. a week!
I.E., you still get returns, but they are diminishing returns and may not be worth the price you pay.0 -
There is plenty of clinical data to show that it's a myth. In the famous starvation studies done in the 50s, they had normal weighted men on a starvation diet for months and they all continued to lose weight right until the end.
It's not a question of whether or not you will lose weight if you have a calorie deficit. You will. The question is whether you are doing it in a healthy way and are you getting a good return on your investment.
For example, in the article quoted above, it says that on 1000 calories, you lose 2 pounds a week and on 500 calories you lose 2.25 to 2.5. For most people, the cons of only eating 500 calories a day far outweigh the pros of losing an extra .25 to .5 lb. I.E., you still get returns, but they are diminishing returns.
a couple posts up i just gave you a recent example of GAIN occuring at under 500 calories a day... so the famous starvation studies in the 50s actually had enough men on a starvation diet (which included how much food?) for months... this definitely means they were like 400lbs men to begin with because i can't imagine the study legally having men close to their normal weight on a starvation diet over such an extensive period of time... and that can be a very different thing, you know...0 -
a couple posts up i just gave you a recent example of GAIN occuring at under 500 calories a day... so the famous starvation studies in the 50s actually had enough men on a starvation diet (which included how much food?) for months... this definitely means they were like 400lbs men to begin with because i can't imagine the study legally having men close to their normal weight on a starvation diet over such an extensive period of time... and that can be a very different thing, you know...
What you gave was an anecdote. It's not clinical data. In a clinical study, there is control and you aren't relying on people's self-reporting, which has been shown to be inaccurate. Anecdotes can be interesting, but they don't prove anything.
As for the study, as I said, these were normal-weighted men and they all agreed to live on a compound where their food intake was strickly controlled. TPTB also strictly monitored their exercise. It was kind of like The Biggest Loser -- excessive exercise, very little food -- only for people who didn't need to lose. A "starvation diet" is defined as eating 50% of the amount of calories you burn.
Such a study would *never* be done today because it wouldn't be considered ethical. Times change though and it was considered perfectly reasonable back then. (Yet another reason I don't miss the 'good old days'.
Similar studies have been repeated since then (the recent ones being modified to current ethical standards) including on the obese. Studies of the obese show that fat is burned preferentially over muscle moreso than in the normal weighted population. So the so-called "starvation mode" effect is even less if you have a lot of weight to lose to start with.
The thing is, the effect of a lowered metabolism is real. But people have changed the end result "metabolism is lowered when you restrict calories" into something that just isn't true - "if you don't eat at least X calories a day, you won't lose weight". If energy consumption remains the same and you lower calories, you will lose weight. It makes no sense to think that at some magic threshold, people can operate at a calorie deficit and not lose weight. If that was true, no one would die of starvation and we know that, unfortunately, people do.
The big variable in all this is that people are not machines. They under-report what they eat and over-report how much they move. They also react to severely restricted calories by severely limiting their energy expenditure, often in a unconscious way. So they tell you they are exercising just a much, but in fact they are lowering their intensity and/or duration, taking more naps, not moving as much in between exercise sessions, etc.
Btw, just to be clear: I am not recommending that people routinely eat 500 calories a day when not under a doctor's care. There are plenty of reasons not to do that. I'm just saying that "You won't lose weight" isn't one of them.0 -
Starvation mode isn't a "myth" but it is very commonly misunderstood. If you have a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Period. However, MacMadame is correct, there is a diminishing return on weight loss for highly restrictive caloric intake. There are many who have successfully lost weight in this manner, there are a few who have managed to keep that weight off. However, the more common outcome is the yo-yo diet weight loss/weight gain merry-go-round.
It's not a healthy way to lose weight , nor does it have a very high success rate in terms of maintanence, and unless you are morbidly obese and under a doctor's supervision, I certainly wouldn't recommend it.0 -
What you gave was an anecdote. It's not clinical data. In a clinical study, there is control and you aren't relying on people's self-reporting, which has been shown to be inaccurate. Anecdotes can be interesting, but they don't prove anything.
Of course, when you can't and don't want to explain and agree that this happens, you say it's an anecdote. An easy way out. There have been multiple threads on MFP itself from people who are at about 1200 cals intake (which is definitely a deficit but not starvation and is alright according to you) and they can't budge the scale for months. They must be an anecdote, too. I have even seen someone who took part in some kinda weight loss study tell how their experiment worked totally the opposite way on her but the study still said it proved what it had to prove and didn't mention a word about the exceptions like her. Oh, she must be another anecdote! I'm sorry but your arguments based on subjective studies done before even my parents were born will never prove what real life experience proves.
On the other hand, on other threads here I have seen you give yourself as an example of how weight can be lost by sticking to a diet of 1200cals or lower. Yes you lost weight but aren't you an anecdote yourself then (since you are not part of a clinical research)? You also forgot to mention along the lines that you are only 5 feet tall and you had gastric bypass (which I may be wrong but.. doesn't this mean food leaves the stomach too fast and is not thoroughly digested?) Let me tell you in case this hasn't occured your mind that what is a normal diet for someone 5 feet tall might as well be a starvation diet for someone 6 feet tall and you can't promise the results will be anywhere near yours.
Peace.0 -
Sorry I came so late to the party, been a rough work week, haven't been able to read the posts much this week.
First I would like to say that I HATE these types of articles because they tell half the story, don't really recommend people go out and do the research, and (in this case) don't even correctly describe the myth.
On the whole MacMadame is correct. I have read tens of clinical studies on people eating very low calorie diets.
Starvation mode isn't a myth, and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to occur, both through use of the scientific theory, and through observed evidence. The article isn't wrong, but it gives the impression that it IS a myth, which I don't like.
The problem is, everyone is different, there are hundreds of factors involved in the body's decision on how much to burn, when to burn it, and what type of energy to use. While our bodies all follow the same general principle (people with medical issues excluded), each and every one of us is a slight variation on the theme. For the WW article to give the impression (this is how it felt to me at least) that you can create as large a deficit as you like and it's not a problem is irresponsible to me. Creating a super large deficit isn't the answer to long term weight loss. It causes almost as many problems as it solves. The only answer I have seen that works is creating a healthy, reasonable deficit, and exercising, this allows the body to reduce it's body fat % while keeping muscle tissue at a healthy level and boosting metabolic rate to help with the exercise. It also gives the body time to make the adjustments to keep a person healthy during the process.
The two big issues I see on here are:
1) people incorrectly report their own metabolism either by incorrect calculation or because their metabolism doesn't exactly follow the normal formula. This is why I always say you need to watch yourself and tweak your routine to fit you. I always say to be very careful with your numbers, and examine what you are doing. Everyone is different, what you need is always going to be different from what others need.
2) There should be different approaches to caloric deficit based on where you are in weight loss. By that I mean, a person who has a BMI of 35 needs to follow different guidlines then someone who has a BMI of 27. That's what always kills me on here. When one person tells what they did, because someone else says they are stalled or plateaued. But you look at the two people and one has 20 lbs to lose and the other has 80 lbs to lose. I just think, these guys shouldn't be doing anything the same, they are at two completely different levels.0 -
In my opinion, the op's article contradicts itself early on when it states that eating too little DOES cause your metabolism to slow- which is exactly the way I describe "starvation mode" to others that ask. SO this is me, rolling my eyes and saying *no comment*0
-
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight-loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2 ¼ to 2 ½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.
While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioural reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Centre article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint).
Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilised, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.
http://www.weightwatchers.ca/util/art/index_art.aspx?art_id=32361&tabnum=1&sc=802&subnav=Science+Library:+The+Physics+of+Weight+Loss
Great post..I tend to agree with it 100% now I dont think Im the majority however Its very hard to determine if anyone is in starvation mode via the net so I believe the post has some relevance here on MFP...the reasons for this being impossible are people are generally not 100% truthful on their diet and excercise routines..when they cry out "starvation mode" I feel a lot of people tend to use it as a crutch ...I personally have been on 1200 calories since Jan 1 and have not hit any plateaus.. I am 100% accountable and stick to my plan 100% to achieve my goals...I do work out 2hrs daily...usually a nice walk because the weather is so nice...I stay away from bread rice and pasta and potato however I do NOT deny myself anything and stick to a 3bite rule for anything sweet......Ive lost a consistent 2-7 pounds per week....great post thks:flowerforyou:0 -
Great post..I tend to agree with it 100% now I dont think Im the majority however Its very hard to determine if anyone is in starvation mode via the net so I believe the post has some relevance here on MFP...the reasons for this being impossible are people are generally not 100% truthful on their diet and excercise routines..when they cry out "starvation mode" I feel a lot of people tend to use it as a crutch ...I personally have been on 1200 calories since Jan 1 and have not hit any plateaus.. I am 100% accountable and stick to my plan 100% to achieve my goals...I do work out 2hrs daily...usually a nice walk because the weather is so nice...I stay away from bread rice and pasta and potato however I do NOT deny myself anything and stick to a 3bite rule for anything sweet......Ive lost a consistent 2-7 pounds per week....great post thks:flowerforyou:
welcome back, mya, you were missing from the boards lately... :flowerforyou: let me once again add the note that when you say "i did this or that and lost weight" it's good to mention you are 5 feet tall. it makes a lot of difference to someone 6 feet tall, even if you are the same weight because there is about 15 points difference in the BMI. same scenario like MacMadame, 1200 is a lot of calories for someone petite but it can be starvation for someone else...0 -
Starvation mode isn't a "myth" but it is very commonly misunderstood. If you have a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Period. However, MacMadame is correct, there is a diminishing return on weight loss for highly restrictive caloric intake. There are many who have successfully lost weight in this manner, there are a few who have managed to keep that weight off. However, the more common outcome is the yo-yo diet weight loss/weight gain merry-go-round.
It's not a healthy way to lose weight , nor does it have a very high success rate in terms of maintanence, and unless you are morbidly obese and under a doctor's supervision, I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
I agree with this.
And why would anyone want to starve themselves to lose weight when you don't have to? Why is everyone in such a rush? No thanks I'lll take the slow and steady approach. That way I know I will stay healthy and that my weightloss can be maintained. Oh, and as a bonus I get to eat too!0 -
Starvation mode isn't a "myth" but it is very commonly misunderstood. If you have a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Period. However, MacMadame is correct, there is a diminishing return on weight loss for highly restrictive caloric intake. There are many who have successfully lost weight in this manner, there are a few who have managed to keep that weight off. However, the more common outcome is the yo-yo diet weight loss/weight gain merry-go-round.
It's not a healthy way to lose weight , nor does it have a very high success rate in terms of maintanence, and unless you are morbidly obese and under a doctor's supervision, I certainly wouldn't recommend it.
I agree with this.
And why would anyone want to starve themselves to lose weight when you don't have to? Why is everyone in such a rush? No thanks I'lll take the slow and steady approach. That way I know I will stay healthy and that my weightloss can be maintained. Oh, and as a bonus I get to eat too!
Talk about rush, did it take everyone over night to gain? No, it's going to take more than over night to get it off, don't starve yourself, it can be done with healthy eating and exercise.:happy:0 -
i didnt mean to create controversy and agree with you guys that every1s body is different..
myself.. i was dangerously under on my calories and lost 30 pounds! it was great but it didnt last too long.. gained 15 back (freshmen 15!!!!!!!) and i cant lose it so i am back here to do it the healthy way.. but for some reason the healthy way itsnt working for me :ohwell: so, i was just interested on ur takes on the starvation mode question..
:flowerforyou:0 -
i didnt mean to create controversy and agree with you guys that every1s body is different..
myself.. i was dangerously under on my calories and lost 30 pounds! it was great but it didnt last too long.. gained 15 back (freshmen 15!!!!!!!) and i cant lose it so i am back here to do it the healthy way.. but for some reason the healthy way itsnt working for me :ohwell: so, i was just interested on ur takes on the starvation mode question..
:flowerforyou:
"the healthy way" typically means you are losing weight to be in a healthy range... from your pictures i get the idea that you are someone in the healthy range possibly trying to make it to the unhealthy/underweight range... i'm sorry if i am wrong on this but you really look very skinny to me and if that's the case, to make it to the unhealthy range you have to lose the weight in an unhealthy way... if i am wrong, then i have no idea why you aren't losing any :ohwell:0 -
i didnt mean to create controversy and agree with you guys that every1s body is different..
myself.. i was dangerously under on my calories and lost 30 pounds! it was great but it didnt last too long.. gained 15 back (freshmen 15!!!!!!!) and i cant lose it so i am back here to do it the healthy way.. but for some reason the healthy way itsnt working for me :ohwell: so, i was just interested on ur takes on the starvation mode question..
:flowerforyou:
"the healthy way" typically means you are losing weight to be in a healthy range... from your pictures i get the idea that you are someone in the healthy range possibly trying to make it to the unhealthy/underweight range... i'm sorry if i am wrong on this but you really look very skinny to me and if that's the case, to make it to the unhealthy range you have to lose the weight in an unhealthy way... if i am wrong, then i have no idea why you aren't losing any :ohwell:
the pictures of me are me when i was 15 pounds lighter.. i have since gined 15.. i am trying to get back to my weight in the picture.. not in the unhealthy range at all 0 -
Fuzz, it's a loooooooong road for your last few pounds. Trying to do it too fast just makes problems for yourself. Take it slow, make this into a lifestyle, then you will be able to stop worrying so much about 15 lbs.
Wouldn't you rather take 5 or 6 months to lose it, never once stress about it, and be happy?
as opposed to
unhealthily trying to lose it all in 6 weeks by starving yourself, eating at a level that you can't sustain, and stressing out all the time about 1 pound.0 -
i didnt mean to create controversy and agree with you guys that every1s body is different..
myself.. i was dangerously under on my calories and lost 30 pounds! it was great but it didnt last too long.. gained 15 back (freshmen 15!!!!!!!) and i cant lose it so i am back here to do it the healthy way.. but for some reason the healthy way itsnt working for me :ohwell: so, i was just interested on ur takes on the starvation mode question..
:flowerforyou:
"the healthy way" typically means you are losing weight to be in a healthy range... from your pictures i get the idea that you are someone in the healthy range possibly trying to make it to the unhealthy/underweight range... i'm sorry if i am wrong on this but you really look very skinny to me and if that's the case, to make it to the unhealthy range you have to lose the weight in an unhealthy way... if i am wrong, then i have no idea why you aren't losing any :ohwell:
the pictures of me are me when i was 15 pounds lighter.. i have since gined 15.. i am trying to get back to my weight in the picture.. not in the unhealthy range at all
that is perfect!! Motivation baby!!0 -
Phew! I made it....I actually didn't but did anyone mention that your metabolism slows the closer you get to a healthy weight? That is why the last few pounds always seem so daunting.
All in all, everyone loses differently. Personally I can't eat the exercise calories..not because I don't want to but this method only helped me maintain or gain a little. I tried but when I reached 10lbs gained I had to play with the whole exercise calories as "bonus" calories thing.
All information shared is always great, if anything it should make us do a little more reading outside of the community so we can inform ourselves because there are sooo many different studies on weight loss etc and that is why so many people find it hard to stay motivated and on track.
Let those last few pounds come off in good time, even if you only lost a lb a week you would still be at your goal weight in 15 weeks, not a long time in the grand scheme of things 0 -
Stories are anecdotes. They aren't clinical data by definition. Clinical data shows that the metabolism slows when you are on a diet, but not enough for weight loss to stop. Some story about some crackpot who went on a cleansing diet doesn't change that.Of course, when you can't and don't want to explain and agree that this happens, you say it's an anecdote.
I'm definitely an anecdote. :laugh: I was using myself as an example, not to prove a point, but to illustrate it.On the other hand, on other threads here I have seen you give yourself as an example of how weight can be lost by sticking to a diet of 1200cals or lower. Yes you lost weight but aren't you an anecdote yourself then (since you are not part of a clinical research)?
(Though I am also part of a clinical study. But that's another topic for another time.)
I am 5'1". That extra inch is important!You also forgot to mention along the lines that you are only 5 feet tall and you had gastric bypass (which I may be wrong but.. doesn't this mean food leaves the stomach too fast and is not thoroughly digested?)
Anyway, my net calories for the past 6.5 months have definitely met the definition of a starvation diet even at 5'1".
It's the nature of weight loss surgery -- it takes a while for the swelling in the stomach to go down and to learn to eat so you can get more calories in. We really don't have a choice -- unless we want to eat ice cream all day, which would completely undermine our long-term success -- so that's why we have so much follow-up with the doctor.
I didn't mention it in this thread because it wasn't relevant to my point and it's in my sig ... plus I have repeatedly said that people not under a doctor's care shouldn't be on a VLCD, so it's not like I'm telling people "eat like I do, you'll be fine!' because I'm not saying that.
And, no, I did not have gastric bypass. As it says in my signature, I had a vertical gastrectomy. I have a completely functional stomach that digests food normally. My stomach emptying half-life is 90 minutes, same as yours. It's just a lot smaller and doesn't make ghrelin any more.
However, gastric bypass patients' food doesn't leave their stomach "not thoroughly digested" any more than the rest of us. Everyone's food goes through further digestion once it leaves the stomach. But that's not really relevant to the discussion of starvation mode. 0
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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