The Starvation (mode) Myth

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.

Not sure this link has been posted in this thread. I didn't read it all the way:

http://muscleevo.com/lyle-mcdonald-interview-one/

Those of you who don't know who Lyle McDonald is, he is one of the most brilliant guys in the field of nutrition and sports science.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/

Q. Some claim that that your body will go into ‘starvation mode’ if you eat too few calories, preventing you from losing weight and that trying to lose weight by eating fewer calories doesn’t work. What do you think?

A. Well there is no doubt that the body slows metabolic rate when you reduce calories or lose weight/fat. There are at least two mechanisms for this.

One is simply the loss in body mass. A smaller body burns fewer calories at rest and during activity. There’s not much you can do about that except maybe wear a weighted vest to offset the weight loss, this would help you burn more calories during activity.

However, there’s an additional effect sometimes referred to as the adaptive component of metabolic rate. Roughly, that means that your metabolic rate has dropped more than predicted by the change in weight.

So if the change in body mass predicts a drop in metabolic rate of 100 calories and the measured drop is 150 calories, the extra 50 is the adaptive component. The mechanisms behind the drop are complex involving changes in leptin, thyroid, insulin and nervous system output (this system is discussed to some degree in all of my books except my first one).

In general, it’s true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women’s bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here’s the thing: in no study I’ve ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.

In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study), men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I’ve ever seen, something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.

Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never, to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss.

This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I suspect that the people who say, “I’m eating 800 calories per day and not losing weight; it must be a starvation response” are actually eating far more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study that I’m aware of has ever found such an occurrence.

So I think the starvation response (a drop in metabolic rate) is certainly real but somewhat overblown. At the same time, I have often seen things like re-feeds or even taking a week off a diet do some interesting things when people are stalled. One big problem is that, quite often, weekly weight or fat loss is simply obscured by the error margin in our measurements.

Do you know where I can get one? ~

OOps, this was supposed to go with the tapeworm, Is there a delete button???
Oh well!

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.

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.

Article? Yes. Article from a peer-reviewed journal? Doubtful. And while I don't advocate a VLCD, the facts are the facts. You're not going to cling to fat because of it. However, you may be micronutrient malnourished (multivitamins really don't provide as much as you'd think). Also, you will have a lot less energy to do any type of exercise which then makes you lose the health benefits of said activity.