No Starvation mode
Awkward30
Posts: 1,927 Member
I apologize if someone has already linked to this article, but I haven't happened upon it on the forum, so here:
No such thing as starvation mode according to:
Neal Spruce is chairman of the board for the prestigious National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM) and founder dotFIT, LLC. Neal is a fitness specialist, author, licensed teacher, researcher, bodybuilding champion, personal fitness consultant and speaker. dotfit is the leading online fitness and weight loss program.
http://nealspruce.articlealley.com/nutrition-myths-starvation-mode--fast-metabolisms-947725.html
tl;dr when you cut calories, your body will lower your output by decreasing spontaneous movement, and as you get lighter, your metabolic needs decrease, but starvation mode is a myth.
No such thing as starvation mode according to:
Neal Spruce is chairman of the board for the prestigious National Academy of Sports Medicine (NASM) and founder dotFIT, LLC. Neal is a fitness specialist, author, licensed teacher, researcher, bodybuilding champion, personal fitness consultant and speaker. dotfit is the leading online fitness and weight loss program.
http://nealspruce.articlealley.com/nutrition-myths-starvation-mode--fast-metabolisms-947725.html
tl;dr when you cut calories, your body will lower your output by decreasing spontaneous movement, and as you get lighter, your metabolic needs decrease, but starvation mode is a myth.
0
Replies
-
wow, good to know!!!!!!!!!0
-
Not sure I believe it all. There are a lot of people who write articles like his. Doesn't mean they are 100% true.0
-
The calories lost by decrease in "spontaneous movement" can be pretty significant. And well being hungry sucks. This is enough for me to avoid numbers that throw up the "starvation mode" warning.0
-
Just to add... Maybe starvation mode doesn't fully exist however why would anyone be want to cause their metabolism to slow? Doesn't make sense to me. I can lose on 1,700 a day... I lose on 1,200 calories a day. Why would I want to eat less, not lose more and hurt my metabolism in the process by making it slower?0
-
Starvation mode is real for me.
When i eat too little i starve.
And then i eat:
1 Big mac combo with
2 doublecheeseburgers
2 junior chicken
rolo icecream
and diet pepsi
with 3 dips of ketchup.0 -
Just to add... Maybe starvation mode doesn't fully exist however why would anyone be want to cause their metabolism to slow? Doesn't make sense to me. I can lose on 1,700 a day... I lose on 1,200 calories a day. Why would I want to eat less, not lose more and hurt my metabolism in the process by making it slower?
EXACTLY.0 -
I didn't see anything about degrees in his list of acomplishments.
The study that is often cited to disprove starvation mode is one from the 40s which showed there was a metabolic slowdown of 10%. I'd rather avoid that.
If you want to eat as little as possible to lose weight that's your choice. I'm not doing that and I'm losing weight quite steadily. The women who eat between 1600-2000 and have similar experiences.0 -
Whether it 'exists' or not, I still believe that if I'm not eating enough, I'm not taking proper care of my body, and I won't be able to do all of the awesome things I want to do. So, eat your food, people!
I also believe in unicorns, FWIW.0 -
starvation mode kicks in at 32+ hours of ZERO food intake.
KTHXBYE!0 -
Starvation mode is real for me.
When i eat too little i starve.
And then i eat:
1 Big mac combo with
2 doublecheeseburgers
2 junior chicken
rolo icecream
and diet pepsi
with 3 dips of ketchup.
this (not to that extent)...0 -
Bwahahahaha!Starvation mode is real for me.
When i eat too little i starve.
And then i eat:
1 Big mac combo with
2 doublecheeseburgers
2 junior chicken
rolo icecream
and diet pepsi
with 3 dips of ketchup.0 -
Starvation mode is real for me.
When i eat too little i starve.
And then i eat:
1 Big mac combo with
2 doublecheeseburgers
2 junior chicken
rolo icecream
and diet pepsi
with 3 dips of ketchup.
Hilarious, but so true! At least for me..0 -
Unfortunately, according to the professionals I've taken advice from, that "spontaneous movement" could include some essential body functions as well. You'll slow down your fidgeting, sure, but your body also starts slowing down its inner processes. Digestion, for example, uses fully 10% of the calories you take in, and brain function alone needs more than double that. Is it wise to risk your health just for the sake of proving something is a myth?0
-
There are articles to support anything.
With this being said, science or not, if you're hungry, eat, make good choices, it's stupid to starve yourself when you are fortunate enough to have food to eat.0 -
I know for a fact, because I've tried it, that if I consume fewer than 1500 calories for more than a few days I stop burning fat and start storing it instead.0
-
starvation mode kicks in at 32+ hours of ZERO food intake.
KTHXBYE!
QFT0 -
-
0
-
The traditional notion of "starvation mode" is loosly understood by most on here as a time when the body begins to adapt to the very low calorie intake and weight loss stalls out. Most people come out of this by eating more which is thought to stimulate normal metabolic function allowing you to begin burning fat stores again (this is paraphrasing what I think most MFP members think "starvation mode" is just to be clear on what we mean while discussing this topic). As I will show below, this (taken at face value) is kinda a myth, but not really. It's much more complex.
Scientifically, what is really going on is a process called adaptive thermogensis, which has been shown to adversely affect weight loss in unbiased scientific studies on both men and women with greater effects on women than men (see below). HOWEVER, this process is slow, but indications do point to it existing and having a very serious and deliterious effect on weight loss. Furthermore, large calorie deficits lead to much lower resting BMR due to loss of lean mass and muscle tissue than smaller ones (beyond the expected lower BMR of someone who is naturally your goal weight). The more you lose, the bigger the change in BMR is going to be, meaning, someone who loses 100+ lbs (say 250 lbs to 150 lbs) on a 2000 calorie deficit is going to have a MUCH lower BMR than someone who went from 180 lbs to 150 lbs on the same deficit because more muscle tissue is catabolized in the process because the extreme deficit is maintainted for much longer.
You can look up more articles that have cited these papers or have been cited by these for more information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
These are all recent, but more studies are available showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing.
P.S. I am not going to come back to this, but those of you reading this thread should avoid taking nutritional advice from fitness gurus who post articles without a single peer-reviewed scientific reference on pages laden with advertisements. Just FYI. PubMed is free to access, and you can often go to your public library to get the full articles for free also if you really want to dig into these papers. I'm not going to argue further than this post, because, quite frankly, I don't feel like it. Read if you want. Dismiss if you want. Just throwing it out there.0 -
I didn't see anything about degrees in his list of acomplishments.
The study that is often cited to disprove starvation mode is one from the 40s which showed there was a metabolic slowdown of 10%. I'd rather avoid that.
If you want to eat as little as possible to lose weight that's your choice. I'm not doing that and I'm losing weight quite steadily. The women who eat between 1600-2000 and have similar experiences.
Those papers show that metabolism slows when you diet to a particular weight regardless of the deficit you run to get there. If you diet to 130 lbs, your metabolism will be lower than a person who "naturally" maintains 130, regardless of whether you cut 500 calories a day or 2000.
I'm not advocating people run more of a deficit then makes them comfortable/happy, just saying that people shouldn't worry so much about doing long term harm. It's not the prevalent issue that this site makes it out to be.0 -
^^^^^The traditional notion of "starvation mode" is loosly understood by most on here as a time when the body begins to adapt to the very low calorie intake and weight loss stalls out. Most people come out of this by eating more which is thought to stimulate normal metabolic function allowing you to begin burning fat stores again (this is paraphrasing what I think most MFP members think "starvation mode" is just to be clear on what we mean while discussing this topic). As I will show below, this (taken at face value) is kinda a myth, but not really. It's much more complex.
Scientifically, what is really going on is a process called adaptive thermogensis, which has been shown to adversely affect weight loss in unbiased scientific studies on both men and women with greater effects on women than men (see below). HOWEVER, this process is slow, but indications do point to it existing and having a very serious and deliterious effect on weight loss. Furthermore, large calorie deficits lead to much lower resting BMR due to loss of lean mass and muscle tissue than smaller ones (beyond the expected lower BMR of someone who is naturally your goal weight). The more you lose, the bigger the change in BMR is going to be, meaning, someone who loses 100+ lbs (say 250 lbs to 150 lbs) on a 2000 calorie deficit is going to have a MUCH lower BMR than someone who went from 180 lbs to 150 lbs on the same deficit because more muscle tissue is catabolized in the process because the extreme deficit is maintainted for much longer.
You can look up more articles that have cited these papers or have been cited by these for more information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
These are all recent, but more studies are available showing the predicted changes in metabolic rates decline sharply in individuals undergoing adaptive thermogenesis which does lead to plateauing.
P.S. I am not going to come back to this, but those of you reading this thread should avoid taking nutritional advice from fitness gurus who post articles without a single peer-reviewed scientific reference on pages laden with advertisements. Just FYI. PubMed is free to access, and you can often go to your public library to get the full articles for free also if you really want to dig into these papers. I'm not going to argue further than this post, because, quite frankly, I don't feel like it. Read if you want. Dismiss if you want. Just throwing it out there.
LIKE0 -
So I don't get it. What is the general definition of Starvation Mode? Eating too little and the subsequent and/or potential metabolic slowing/damage, that occurs...is not "starvation mode" ? Otherwise what are people trying to explain by saying starvation mode. It's not like they think you're actually starving, but it's a pun for not eating enough, from what I've seen. I've used the term countless numbers of times for the same reasons I posted on this topic a few weeks ago, and those reasons are basically, 1. Why not call it starvation mode? 2. If one was to say "adaptive thermogensis" it carries little weight for the average layperson or non or new trainee, and you might have to further explain what that means and then run off into other "in one ear and out the other" tangents0
-
Sure, sure, people are going to argue over this for ever.
In my opinion, whether "starvation mode" exists or not (and I think that term gets used so much that it's practically meaninless), cutting calories very low isn't necessary to lose weight and is not likely to be a good path to long term health.0 -
Starvation mode is real for me.
When i eat too little i starve.
And then i eat:
1 Big mac combo with
2 doublecheeseburgers
2 junior chicken
rolo icecream
and diet pepsi
with 3 dips of ketchup.0 -
^^^^^this lol0
-
Not sure I believe it all. There are a lot of people who write articles like his. Doesn't mean they are 100% true.
This is true for every article, including those pieces that write that starvation modes exists.
It is definitely a case of people hearing what they want to hear. If somebody reads or hears somebody say something and it is what they already believe in or like to hear, they will more often than not, endorse it. If, however, it is something they dislike, especially immensely, or they steadfastedly do not believe it, they will discard it as myth much of the time.
Personally, I do not believe in starvation mode as in the definition regarding MFP.0 -
^^ Very good read, thank you0
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