Starvation mode myth or fact???

thank you i was very curious

The article you linked to is about a study that was testing endocrine markers under VERY specific circumstances. They were undergoing Army Ranger training. They were exposed to many stresses including "sustained workload, inadequate sleep [an average of 3.6 hours per day, the article goes on to say], and thermal strain."

These are NOT normal circumstances that you or I or anyone on this website would be in while trying various diets. Any results that the article concluded should not necessarily be considered for people who do not fit the description of those who participated in the study. These men were in "starvation mode" (a net of 1000 calories, lower than the 1200 standard) not because they were eating 1.5k calories and exercising 500 and not eating back the exercise calories, as is often the case when people post on these forums. They were burning around 10,000 calories in a day. It's a bit different.

On top of this, the article actually says that in the study there were"overall reductions in
metabolic rate," (aka metabolism goes down) which is exactly why people say you should avoid starvation mode when trying to lose weight.

I was not able to listen to the podcast, but my guess is they may have taken some liberties with their analysis of that article.

So yes, the article does say you can lose weight if you net less than 1,000 calories per day. The article also says you do this by being awake for 20 hours, exposing yourself to extreme temperatures, and doing extremely intense physical activities for hours on end. Taking this information and therefore assuming that a person who is NOT going through ranger training will have similar results netting 1,000 calories per day might not be correct.

That said, weight loss certainly is different for everybody! I'm sure many people net 1k calories per day and have great success. But I just wanted to point out that that article actually does more to suggest that starvation mode is real than it does suggesting it's a myth.

thanks! My cals are at 1200 and some days I eat 1225 or more, but some days I eat like 1175. It's good to know that every once in a while it's fine to do that!

regardless of whether this is true for the obese...i don't think caloric restriction (<1200) is beneficial over time. i can't cite research specifically but i think many of us can attest to the strong urges to eat more than normal as a result of restriction. as in the neverending cycle of eat too little for a few days, eat too much, make up for it by eating too little again, then eating too much and so on...

slow and steady!

I have read a number of research articles on this issue over the years and research shows that losing fat through significant calorie restriction can be successful, however the hormones that regulate the hunger/satiety pathways have a huge impact on the ability to maintain the weight loss. While one CAN successfully lose fat on extremely low calorie diets, as mentioned in the post above, it is very difficult to refrain from eating back the weight loss, as the brain is bombarded by message to EAT.

Our bodies desire homeostasis or: remaining-the-same. As you cut calories, your body wants to maintain its current state and will slow your metabolism as it simultaneously screams for food. So, while one CAN lose fat by severely cutting calories, it will be much more difficult to avoid gaining it all back than it will be for someone who just cuts 100-200 calories/day from their diet, as you will have less energy and have to ignore the brain's insistent messages to eat.

Our bodies are made for energy (fat) storage. Our ancestors did not always have access to food and could sustain themselves on bodyfat. That being said I am in the stage of trying to lose the last 10 pounds and have really hit a wall. I'm afraid to drop calories below my resting metabolic rate for fear of exhaustion and stalling my metabolism. I love what I do and need the energy to do it!

I think this is a topic that is still not conclusive either way.

This is all still very confusing to me, as I have heard many different stories, one being it takes 3-4 weeks for starvation mode to kick in..Im considered to be obese for my height and weight, im 5'3 currently 185, MPF has me at 1200 calories, and I workout 60 mins, 6 days a week..I started Oct 13th, and my first month I lost 18 pounds, and I dont even think I ever hit the full 1200 calories..I am not a person who has ate alot in the past, but when I did, it was in larger portions and not healthy, so trying to eat 1200 cals a day is difficult, and I burn 500-700 cals, and eating those cals back is a challenge..and my weight loss has slowed completely down, to a 1lb a week, and sometimes no changes...so im still really confused on the whole starvation mode thing, and my biggest concern, is if I need to be eating more than 1200 cals a day, even tho MPF has me at 1200, and do you guys think I will go into starvation mode???

I think "Starvation Mode" is real, but I also think that people talk way too much about it on MFP. Most of us will not experience this. Notice: I said "most". No doubt there are some here who have experienced it, but I think it is a topic overly discussed here.

I eat over 3000 calories daily, and on "free day" consume over 5000.

Bobby, are you including your exercise calories in that 3,000 or does exercise bump them up even more?

The issue is, Starvation Mode has multiple meanings.

True starvation mode is when our body is eating lean mass and tissue for survival, it's the brains last ditch effort.to survive before we die.

In the diet sense it simply means our metabolism has slowed down to preserve our stored energy and our cravings increase in attempt to get us to eat more. This is a fact about dieting, and it's hormone driven.

I am set at 1500 but I usually eat 1200 or a bit over. I'm at a BMI of 20.1 at the moment and i struggle to eat enough sometimes e.g. today I ate 1063.

Is this bad? I ate under 1490 yesterday but day before it was 990...is this a bad sort of pattern or will that be ok for my metabolism?

Our bodies are made for energy (fat) storage. Our ancestors did not always have access to food and could sustain themselves on bodyfat. That being said I am in the stage of trying to lose the last 10 pounds and have really hit a wall. I'm afraid to drop calories below my resting metabolic rate for fear of exhaustion and stalling my metabolism. I love what I do and need the energy to do it!

I think this is a topic that is still not conclusive either way.

Regardless of what studies have found, here is my experience so far. I have lost about 40 pounds over the last year. I started at 178 pounds and calories of 1440. When I got below 140 pounds, it was really hard to lose more. I was at 1200 calories and not progressing. If I ate a little more, I seemed to gain. A MFP friend told me to get my maintenance calories for my desired weight and average it with the 1200. It increased my daily calorie intake and I have been losing weight since! Yeah!

My husband started out at 369. He is now 297 or so. He started losing in August. He lost quickly by severely decreasing his calories. He plateaued a bit and now is slowly increasing his calories a little. He has seen loss since increasing.

Very usefull information thank you.

I think there is so much commotion about 'starvation mode' but when you have a tummy layered in fat and are eating just below the 1200 calories as recommended, i somehow don't think my body is going to starve on those spare tyres i have! maybe if i didn't have an ounce of fat on my body but the truth of the matter is i do so i don't think i need to worry!

When authorities talk about it they're almost invariably referring to intake levels much lower than the average MFP poster is.

I think the 'harder to maintain your loss' stuff mainly occurs DURING the high deficit, not after it. There are two effects-- reduced activity and increased appetite that occurs DURING the deficit and reduced LBM that affects one afterward as well. If you take measures to protect your LBM %, there is no reason it's harder to maintain your loss afterward. Your activity and appetite will go back to what they are at maintenance level eating when you return to that eating, regardless of if you lose weight at .5 lb/week or at 2 lbs/week.