The Starvation (mode) Myth
623Hernandez
Posts: 458
The Starvation Myth
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.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
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 2¼ to 2½ 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 behavioral 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 Center 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 stabilized, 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.
Weight Watchers Approach
The <PointsPlus system is designed to provide a caloric intake that supports a healthy rate of weight loss, produces a minimal reduction in metabolism and avoids inducing too-high levels of dietary restraint.
This content is reviewed regularly. Last updated December 17, 2011.
view footnotes
RELATED INFORMATION
Other Science Library Topics
•Weight-Loss Plateaus
•Calories, Metabolism and Weight Loss
•Increasing Metabolism
FOOTNOTES
1 Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The role of energy expenditure in energy regulation: Findings from a decade of research. Nutr Rev. 1995. 53:209-220.
2 Burgess NS. Effect of a very-low calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.
3 Rogers PJ. Eating habits and appetite control: a psychobiological perspective. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Feb;58(1):59-67.
4 Weinsier RL, Nagy TR, Hunter GR, Darnell BE, Hensrud DD, Weiss HL. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Nov;72(5):1088-94.
© 2012 Weight Watchers International, Inc. © 2012 WeightWatchers.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
WEIGHT WATCHERS and PointsPlus® are the registered trademarks of Weight Watchers International, Inc. and are used under license by WeightWatchers.com, Inc.
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.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department
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 2¼ to 2½ 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 behavioral 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 Center 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 stabilized, 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.
Weight Watchers Approach
The <PointsPlus system is designed to provide a caloric intake that supports a healthy rate of weight loss, produces a minimal reduction in metabolism and avoids inducing too-high levels of dietary restraint.
This content is reviewed regularly. Last updated December 17, 2011.
view footnotes
RELATED INFORMATION
Other Science Library Topics
•Weight-Loss Plateaus
•Calories, Metabolism and Weight Loss
•Increasing Metabolism
FOOTNOTES
1 Saltzman E, Roberts SB. The role of energy expenditure in energy regulation: Findings from a decade of research. Nutr Rev. 1995. 53:209-220.
2 Burgess NS. Effect of a very-low calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.
3 Rogers PJ. Eating habits and appetite control: a psychobiological perspective. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 Feb;58(1):59-67.
4 Weinsier RL, Nagy TR, Hunter GR, Darnell BE, Hensrud DD, Weiss HL. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr 2000 Nov;72(5):1088-94.
© 2012 Weight Watchers International, Inc. © 2012 WeightWatchers.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
WEIGHT WATCHERS and PointsPlus® are the registered trademarks of Weight Watchers International, Inc. and are used under license by WeightWatchers.com, Inc.
0
Replies
-
Hmmm.. Interesting...0
-
I keep being told that anything under 1200 cal a day will make me go into starvation mode. My medical team debunked this for me:
5'4 33 yr old woman SW166. I've seen a physician, dietitian, and personal trainer. In depth analysis on my BMR and body composition were done. I was placed on a diet of between 1000-1200 calories a day 40% Carbs 30% Fat 30% Protien. I've tried extreme low carb diets before and felt very sick. Also I would never have put myself on so few calories a day thinking it is unhealthy. This balance makes me feel better than I have felt for years. I have more energy, no cravings, and am sleeping so much better. When asking why my calorie recommendation is so low it was explained that it in is large part due to my bodyfat being so high (39%). The medical professionals guiding me said that they may raise my calories gradually to "feed my muscles" as my lean body mass increases. I was also told not to focus on weight initially because my weight will likely go up or stay the same for a while as my body composition changes. Sure enough they are right in 3 weeks only 3lbs lost but 3" lost on both waist and hips.
Instead of guessing or just following what others are doing it may be best to get medical guidance to help understand each person's unique needs. This type of guidance is free for people with Medicaid and is covered for most employer group medical insurance plans. I've paid under $75 in co-pays for several appointments and tests. This is less than I have paid for some supplements in the past.
Aloha!0 -
Thanks Aloha, beautifully put!0
-
Thanks for posting this. The term 'starvation mode' is thrown out around here way too often.0
-
I don't know if the biological principle is a "starvation mode" (though that principle does make some logical sense to me seeing as how the body adapts so well to its environment in other ways) but I do know that lengthy weight loss plateau's do occur and definitely aren't only attributable to "periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss".
A couple of years back, I restricted my calories to between 1200 and 1400 a day. I successfully lost 40lbs over the course of about 3 months but then the weight loss stopped dead. For two straight months I continued to try, no periods of overeating, same caloric deficit, same strict logging. After that the loss began again but very very slowly.
So regardless of biological mechanism behind it, I strongly believe in the existence of a reduced metabolic rate that can occur when cals are extremely low.0 -
I keep being told that my body is going into starvation mode because I'm eating under 1200 calories a day.
I'm glad someone cleared this up for me and everyone else here.0 -
That is a really interesting read, thanks x0
-
thank you for posting this. the simple fact of the matter is that if you are eating less/consuming less cals and working out you will lose weight.0
-
Thanks for posting this!0
-
I think "starvation mode' is just an oversimplification of what posts above have said, which is:
1. Netting very low calories reduces metabolism and the rate that you will lose;
2. If you're decreasing fat percentage and building muscle, you do need to increase calories (in the right way) to "feed the muscle".
Therefore, netting very low calories, especially when doing intense exercise to try to build muscle, is not a "healthy" way to lose weight in most cases (as confirmed by the WW article in the first post).
However, I agree that everyone's body is different, and whilst advice on here is great it's always best to speak to a doctor about your own body!0 -
Eh. I think we this is a great example of confirmation bias. I can go online and just as easily find an article about how starvation mode is in fact a real thing.
I think the truth lies in what the above poster said. Sure, you can eat under you calorie goal, even under 1000 calories a day, to the point that your body is putting out far more calories then it is taking in. And in the long run, you will lose weight, but at what determent. Doesn't make it healthy.0 -
There are articles to support anything you WANT to believe. That being said, people should eat when they are hungry, anyone can lose weight, they will gain it back if they starved themselves to get there, that's about as simple as it gets. 1200calories is base, if you feel comfortable there, great, but normal people who need a bit more to function like humans will require more, and still lose weight.0
-
You can ingest a tapeworm to lose weight as well, definitely doesn't mean you'll be healthy!!!0
-
You can ingest a tapeworm to lose weight as well, definitely doesn't mean you'll be healthy!!!
lol, well put.0 -
What a GREAT thing for me to read this AM!
I was just lamenting over this very topic last night.
I am reading from both sides of the fence ( The bad and the good on not getting 1200cl a day) and see merit in both trains of thought about it. BUT what I see consistently, is that, like you mentioned, if there is a LARGE body fat supply for the body to get fuel from and we are getting appropriate nutrition,lots of calorie dense clean foods, it will be ok to only eat 1000 calories.
As long as we aren't eating 800 calories a day and then gorging on a 3000 calorie day the next, we should still maintain a healthy weight loss and NOT "starve". I feel like,Even faithful perfect BMR eaters will plateau. Our bodies are made to survive and will try to do so at every chance.
I am just blah blah blah-ing, but I am just happy to see this info.
Good to know. And from a trusted source like WW? double encouragement (for me at least)
Good Luck to you!!0 -
Something else to read about the "Starvation Mode"
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
The problem with eating so few calories is well is that people who tend this (myself included pre-MFP) was I would consistently eat under my calories, then binge one day, then not eat for many days (I mean, not NOT eat, but eat very little) then binge again. An ugly cycle.0 -
Interesting read.0
-
And its posts like this where people get the idea of what they are doing to their bodies is okay. IT'S ABOUT GETTING THE NUTRIENTS YOU NEED. Most people will never get the nutrients they need on a 1000 calories a day diet or less. Maybe starvation mode isn't the right word but YOU ARE HURTING YOUR BODY. You NEED a certain amount of NUTRIENTS to make your body run. If you eat only 1000 calories and not meeting your nutrient goal, you really are hurting your body and you really will suffer in the end. I'm a nursing major and am in the process of taking my second nutrition class and I'm pretty sure both of my professors whom have their phd know what they're talking about when they tell us 1200 calories a day for women and 1500 for men. Also you should never be more than 1000 calories in debt for a single day. That is not healthy in any way shape or form. If you want to be in a deficit of 1000 calories for a day try being in a deficit of 500 with food and get up and go to the gym or take a walk to burn calories.
Just sayin. I can't believe people post stuff like this and encourage people to under eat. Makes me sick.0 -
Great reading. Thanks for posting makes it easier to understand.0
-
Eh. I think we this is a great example of confirmation bias. I can go online and just as easily find an article about how starvation mode is in fact a real thing.
I think the truth lies in what the above poster said. Sure, you can eat under you calorie goal, even under 1000 calories a day, to the point that your body is putting out far more calories then it is taking in. And in the long run, you will lose weight, but at what determent. Doesn't make it healthy.
^^^^ This. Number one problem with the internet and media. You can find anything supporting one side or another. Lose weight this way if you want, but most will come off as muscle, not the fat you're probably trying to get rid of. In that way, you are hurting yourself.0 -
Your body's metabolism will slow down when not getting enough food. The biggest factor to remember is that when that happens your body will start burning lean muscle mass. This isn't what you are trying to accomplish when losing weight. There are a ton of ways to lose fat. However, to do it properly with proper diet and exercise, you need to be eating the proper amount of calories and keeping macros (carbs, fats and proteins) in proper balance. This article isn't helping anyone.0
-
And its posts like this where people get the idea of what they are doing to their bodies is okay. IT'S ABOUT GETTING THE NUTRIENTS YOU NEED. Most people will never get the nutrients they need on a 1000 calories a day diet or less. Maybe starvation mode isn't the right word but YOU ARE HURTING YOUR BODY. You NEED a certain amount of NUTRIENTS to make your body run. If you eat only 1000 calories and not meeting your nutrient goal, you really are hurting your body and you really will suffer in the end. I'm a nursing major and am in the process of taking my second nutrition class and I'm pretty sure both of my professors whom have their phd know what they're talking about when they tell us 1200 calories a day for women and 1500 for men. Also you should never be more than 1000 calories in debt for a single day. That is not healthy in any way shape or form. If you want to be in a deficit of 1000 calories for a day try being in a deficit of 500 with food and get up and go to the gym or take a walk to burn calories.
Amen to This!
Just sayin. I can't believe people post stuff like this and encourage people to under eat. Makes me sick.0 -
Thanks!! My aim is 1200 a day, and I do not feel like I am starving. It is rare that I am hungry, and if I am.....I let myself have something.
Good info!0 -
There are articles to support anything you WANT to believe. That being said, people should eat when they are hungry, anyone can lose weight, they will gain it back if they starved themselves to get there, that's about as simple as it gets. 1200calories is base, if you feel comfortable there, great, but normal people who need a bit more to function like humans will require more, and still lose weight.
well said. There are simple facts like... you go further with a full tank of gas than with an empty one.0 -
I agree that you can lose a lot of weight on a very low calorie diet. However most of the weight loss comes from muscle & water, not fat. The biggest problem with a very low calorie diet isn't about losing weight, it is all about slowing down your metabolism because in this way your body cannibalizes your muscles while holding on to fat. The result: skinny-fat or people who are thin but saggy & I don't think anyone in his right mind would like to end up that way. Moreover since less muscles equals slow metabolism so you're burning fewer calories & once you revert back to eating normal, you'll gain weight even faster than how you lose it.
Geez people stop focusing your success on the scale. The scale doesn't know the difference between fat weight & lean body mass & it doesn't even know how you look in the mirror. Another thing you may become thin but ended up sickly. Don't be stupid enough to sacrifice your health just for the sake of a certain number on the scale.0 -
Yes, but what kind of "weight" will it be?thank you for posting this. the simple fact of the matter is that if you are eating less/consuming less cals and working out you will lose weight.
Lean body mass?
Bottom line is you can find anybody to agree with your absurd notions of unhealthy weight loss..
And if you want to fail, starve yourself.
Go right ahead - be my guest.
For those here who want to succeed and be fit for life, run from any diet that restricts food too much.
MFP recommends 1 lb per week for a reason.
Be smart and do this the right way. Don't cheat yourself.
1 lb may not sound sexy, but in a year, that's 52 lbs - wow!
It's not a race folks.0 -
I ate under 1200 calories and lost weight. Not only did I lose weight, I lost body fat and gained lean mass. So it can be done in a healthy manner.0
-
Oh, my. Thank you so much for posting this. Everyone needs to read it. I was always afraid even with eating right and burning a lot of calories during exercise it would take forever to drop pounds. This article changed my perspective. Thank you so much for that c:0
-
You can ingest a tapeworm to lose weight as well, definitely doesn't mean you'll be healthy!!!
lmfao...I am adding you.0 -
There are two things everyone has.
Opinions and *kitten*
Which one are you gonna share with the world??
Really, because something isn't right in line with YOUR point of view, doesn't make it wrong, just not right for you.
Don't be mean to the girl just because she found support in something that feels wrong to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions