Starvation mode hysteria

lol okay. many ways to lose weight, normal people just learn to eat and exercise in balance not too much not too little of either. if someone likes starving, it seems there is no reasoning with them at this point.

starving yourself is stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid

I think the term is used for lack of a better word.... No one is using the term starvation mode in the context of not eating food for days on end, or some sort of famine diet..... They are basically using this term in the form when you run a large caloric deficit for sometime that it eventually will cause your metabolism to slow to the point that your weightloss stalls and you hit weeks of plateau's. That is the way I have used the term in the past and will continue too for lack of a better one....... And I don't use it because I eat to much but through trial and error I can tell you for me now I have to eat more to lose weight. I am in the camp of eating to fuel my workouts and I am losing a pound a week 32 months and 302 lbs. lost into this journey..... Just my 2 cents.......

You are a true inspiration to me!

Can anyone here post me a picture of a fat African famine victim? Those people twittering on about starvation mode need to get a life, start losing weight, and stop scaremongering. I don't advocate starving as a weight-loss method, but fasting for a day or two never did anyone harm. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the SM term used on here, and feel it is a popular phrase used by people who eat too much...

Sorry for the short rant, but this has bugged me for a while. Feel free to crucify me...

Regards, David

No fat African famine victims - definately. But their lack of nutrition has devoured their muscle and fat and that bloated belly is caused by malnutrition. Not pretty - very sad. Fasting for a couple days or a week long cleanse is not going to hurt anyone - you're right however there are a lot of people who regularly eat less than 1200 calories a day and in the long run this is only hurting them - been there, done that.

denying yourself food for the sake of a cleanse is not called for. your body is smart and the best cleanse is fruits, vegetables, lean meat if you eat it, nuts, water, whole foods. your body knows what to do with it

Thank you for this!!!!

Why do you think doctors put morbidly obese people on 800 calorie diets? It isn't JUST about calories. It is about where your calories are coming from and how often you are eating. If you're eating 1300 calories throughout the day (and not just in one big meal) your body knows that there is an adequate supply of food in the world.

Insulin responses from high carb diets have a large effect on weight gain and stubborn weight loss. Hormones are your enemy in weight loss and as long as you are eating wholesome, natural foods high in protein, your body wont conserve all of your fat and only burn your muscle.

Just a quick insight into this statement about morbidly obese people... Not all doctors put their patients on an 800 calories diet... I began my journey unable to walk from room to room without a roller chair to get around and from the first couple of weeks once I started eating healthy and started dropping weight (week 1 lost 11 lbs. , week 2 lost 8 lbs. , week 3 lost 4 lbs.) my dietician quickly adjusted my caloric intake and carb counting to lose 1 to 2 lbs. a week.. She had said to expect rapid weightloss for 3-4 weeks because I was consuming over 7000 calories a day and now we are adjusting your intake to maintain a healthy and permanent weightloss.... So for me and i would assume all of her and my doctors patients this applies.... And now 32 months into this journey I am eating 3200-3400 calories a day (eating back 85% of my exercise calories) and still dropping weight at a healthy and manageable rate of a pound a week...

Can anyone here post me a picture of a fat African famine victim? Those people twittering on about starvation mode need to get a life, start losing weight, and stop scaremongering. I don't advocate starving as a weight-loss method, but fasting for a day or two never did anyone harm. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the SM term used on here, and feel it is a popular phrase used by people who eat too much...

Sorry for the short rant, but this has bugged me for a while. Feel free to crucify me...

Regards, David

I know, right. Metabolic slowdown does occur when going on a hypocaloric diets, but the term starvation mode is used way too often. Basically, it's used here so much as a scare tactic to keep the idiots from killing themselves.

Read this here people

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

info from Dr. McDugall's site .Jeff Novick RD
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17541

"The issue is, there is no "starvation mode."

Starvation, yes.

Starvation mode, no.

Let's clarify.

Starvation mode is often used by dieters to explain why they have not lost weight, are not losing weight, or why they have stopped losing weight. They say their body is holding on to the weight because they are eating too few calories and the body has gone into this starvation mode to conserve calories. The solution they give, is to eat more calories, to get the body out of starvation mode so they can resume losing weight.

This is absolutely incorrect.

Keeping everything else the same, you simple can not lose more weight by adding in more calories.

Also, if someone was in the above scenario and the actually ate less, even much less, or even fasted, we all know they would start to lose weight. Yet, according to their reasoning behind the starvation mode, they should actually go further into this mode and not lose anymore weight at all.

Now, if someone consistently consumes a low calorie intake, or is in a negative calorie balance, and gets to a point where they have used up all their reserves of essential fats, they will enter what is known as "starvation" and not "starvation mode". And, they must eat at this time or they will soon die. This is not a weight issue but a life and death issue. And, we know that if they do eat, they will gain weight, not lose weight, as hypothesized in the starvation mode theory.

So, starvation mode does not exist. Starvation does and anyone can reach that point.

In starvation mode, they say you must eat more than you are, so you will lose more weight, which is absolutely incorrect.

In starvation, you must eat or you will die and you will gain weight as a result of eating.

You can see how they have completely misrepresented the actual issue of starvation into their crazy theory of the starvation mode."

If you're not losing weight, eat less or move more.

The problem is this blanket statement doesn't apply to all situations (the inherent danger of blanket statements). While I think there is a bit of hysteria revolving around "starvation mode" and exercise calories on MFP, I think the most dangerous thing someone can do is drop blanket statements everywhere on the message boards.

If you aren't losing weight the only solution is to eat less.

You absolutely need to eat more to lose.

Never eat your exercise calories.

Always eat your exercise calories.

No wonder newbies here are overwhelmed. I prefer to take a "hey, this works for some, but it may not work for you" approach. There is no one size fits all when it comes to weight loss. These boards would be a little more friendly if people were a little less opinionated and a little more open. People lose a couple of pounds and suddenly we are all weight loss and nutrition experts.

You stated this perfectly! Thank you!!

For all the guys I coach the method is clear.

We initially reduce calories to just below maintenance. We then factor in weights being lifted and 1 sessions of cardio per day for 50 mins, 6 days a week and a second bit of cardio on a weights day, which is usually 4 days a week for 20 mins. If they plateau I'll add in a second 30-50 min section of cardio and chart weight loss. If it stalls, only at this point will I remove calories from the diet. At no point will I ever increase calories.

Every person I've coached gets to sub 10% body fat, men and women. The process is easy, people simply over estimate how many calories they need and over estimates how much calories their workouts burn.

]Would you feel better if we said people were bringing themselves to a point of "inadequate overall nutrition leading to the body's need to leach from itself, and insufficient metabolic support to encourage efficient mobilization of fat stores as fuel" ?

Essentially the science is - reduce your calories too low and leptin will not be released which on turn will slow your metabolism down by the body slowing the production and release of triiodothyronine (T3) which means your metabolism will slow to a crawl to preserve as much as it can.

However this level varies person to person so 800 calories could lead to weight loss (and muscle) in one person and in another they may need 1400-1600 calories to see the same - because of different muscle mass levels, fat levels, activity levels etc etc. For someone who cares about muscle mass I would never drop too low however.

i don't know if anyone needs to get "alarmed" about it... but it does lower your metabolism in the long term to eat 1200 or fewer calories. if you eat more and lose more slowly you'll be more satisfied which seems better in my mind. also if you eat more, you preserve more of your muscle. sounds like a lot of reasons to not eat less. maybe it's just the term that you have a problem with, not the actual idea of it (which really does suck).

Can anyone here post me a picture of a fat African famine victim? Those people twittering on about starvation mode need to get a life, start losing weight, and stop scaremongering. I don't advocate starving as a weight-loss method, but fasting for a day or two never did anyone harm. I am SICK and TIRED of hearing the SM term used on here, and feel it is a popular phrase used by people who eat too much...

Sorry for the short rant, but this has bugged me for a while. Feel free to crucify me...

Regards, David

Awesome article!!

I know, right. Metabolic slowdown does occur when going on a hypocaloric diets, but the term starvation mode is used way too often. Basically, it's used here so much as a scare tactic to keep the idiots from killing themselves.

Read this here people

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

yes, thank you for the level headed response, that is what I think too, as a newbie it is confusing to read all those.
also, some people have medical conditions etc.

There is a difference between eating 900 calories a day, and then binging once a week on 3,000 calories, (which is what many people "dieting" do) and eating 200 calories a day with limited fresh water and lack of vitamins (which is what starving people do).

thank you

I think the term is used for lack of a better word.... No one is using the term starvation mode in the context of not eating food for days on end, or some sort of famine diet..... They are basically using this term in the form when you run a large caloric deficit for sometime that it eventually will cause your metabolism to slow to the point that your weightloss stalls and you hit weeks of plateau's. That is the way I have used the term in the past and will continue too for lack of a better one....... And I don't use it because I eat to much but through trial and error I can tell you for me now I have to eat more to lose weight. I am in the camp of eating to fuel my workouts and I am losing a pound a week 32 months and 302 lbs. lost into this journey..... Just my 2 cents.......

^^^This.

I'm not sure that everyone works the same, but, for me, there was a fine balance between eating too little (effectively causing my body to resist losing fat) and eating too much (causing an excess that my body stored as fat).

1200 calories was too low for me, without even factoring in exercise calories. When I started eating more and utilizing the exercise calories that I earned, my body rewarded me with weight loss. Hurrah!