call it what you want "starvation mode" is REAL
love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
Posts: 6,897 Member
I think people get hung up on semantics when the attempt to refute the validity of the assertion that caloric restriction causes an individual to go into starvation mode. While I agree that "Starvation mode" is actually quite rare, this is not likely what MOST people are referring to.
I believe the common person using it simply means that the metabolism slows down and weight loss is no longer what one would predict based on the "deficit" created by the reduction in calories. I 100% believe that this occurs and is a huge impediment to weight loss for people who restrict their calories too much in an effort to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Here is a quote from just one study:
"In response to caloric restriction (CR/LCD combined), TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively, indicating a metabolic adaptation. Likewise, physical activity (TDEE adjusted for sleeping metabolic rate) was significantly reduced from baseline at both time points. For control and CR+EX, adjusted TDEE (body composition or sleeping metabolic rate) was not changed at either M3 or M6.
Conclusions
For the first time we show that in free-living conditions, CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels. These data also suggest potential mechanisms by which CR causes large inter-individual variability in the rates of weight loss and how exercise may influence weight loss and weight loss maintenance."
Source:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
CR: caloric restriction (25% reduction)
LCD: Low calorie diet (890 calories)
CR + EX: caloric restriction and exercise (12.5% caloric restriction, 12.5% increase in physical activity)
M3/M6: month 3/6
Now if it were simple CALORIES IN- CALORIES OUT there would be little to no variability in rate of weight loss but we know this is not true.
Just another viewpoint to consider.
I believe the common person using it simply means that the metabolism slows down and weight loss is no longer what one would predict based on the "deficit" created by the reduction in calories. I 100% believe that this occurs and is a huge impediment to weight loss for people who restrict their calories too much in an effort to lose weight as quickly as possible.
Here is a quote from just one study:
"In response to caloric restriction (CR/LCD combined), TDEE adjusted for body composition, was significantly lower by −431±51 and −240±83 kcal/d at M3 and M6, respectively, indicating a metabolic adaptation. Likewise, physical activity (TDEE adjusted for sleeping metabolic rate) was significantly reduced from baseline at both time points. For control and CR+EX, adjusted TDEE (body composition or sleeping metabolic rate) was not changed at either M3 or M6.
Conclusions
For the first time we show that in free-living conditions, CR results in a metabolic adaptation and a behavioral adaptation with decreased physical activity levels. These data also suggest potential mechanisms by which CR causes large inter-individual variability in the rates of weight loss and how exercise may influence weight loss and weight loss maintenance."
Source:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
CR: caloric restriction (25% reduction)
LCD: Low calorie diet (890 calories)
CR + EX: caloric restriction and exercise (12.5% caloric restriction, 12.5% increase in physical activity)
M3/M6: month 3/6
Now if it were simple CALORIES IN- CALORIES OUT there would be little to no variability in rate of weight loss but we know this is not true.
Just another viewpoint to consider.
0
Replies
-
We don't need another "Starvation mode" thread. You are going to believe what you believe. Others will believe what they believe.
Let's give it a rest.0 -
We don't need another "Starvation mode" thread. You are going to believe what you believe. Others will believe what they believe.
Let's give it a rest.
haha i see it as my DUTY to inform the uninformed MFPers with sound research--at least it gives them a firmer foundation to base their opinions on. if you don't like the thread don't respond. simple.0 -
We don't need another "Starvation mode" thread. You are going to believe what you believe. Others will believe what they believe.
Let's give it a rest.
haha i see it as my DUTY to inform the uninformed MFPers with sound research--at least it gives them a firmer foundation to base their opinions on. if you don't like the thread don't respond. simple.
Considering how many threads and "facts" on here are pulled out of peoples' arses, it's nice to see someone do their homework. Thank you, love4.0 -
Let's give it a rest.
please.0 -
frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...
otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...
why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...0 -
We don't need another "Starvation mode" thread. You are going to believe what you believe. Others will believe what they believe.
Let's give it a rest.
haha i see it as my DUTY to inform the uninformed MFPers with sound research--at least it gives them a firmer foundation to base their opinions on. if you don't like the thread don't respond. simple.
ok seriously, those of u who are bashing, do you see those abs?! i mean c'mon.i'd listen to this chick
0 -
What I think is interesting is how many people who eat at 1200 suddenly find themselves struggling to eat more. I believe this is caused by the metabolism slowing down, which takes the appetite with it.
I believe we really can have a reasonable discussion about this without an all-out flame war. No need to get snippy, folks. Eat a sandwich. Be happy. :bigsmile:0 -
What exactly did you "prove?" It's widely known that the body does indeed response to long term caloric reduction. There is a slow down in the metabolism. However, that doesn't mean that the body STOPS losing weight or stops burning stored fat.
So what's your point exactly?
If the body completely stopped losing weight because of caloric reduction, then it would be impossible for people to actually starve.
Additionally, if someone is extremely obese, their BMR is so high that the body has to burn calories in order to just stay alive. The body will pull those calories from stored body fat.
I don't support anyone starving themselves. However, eating 1200 calories a day is not starving.
Maybe we need to get past 1200 as the "magical starvation number."0 -
frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...
otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...
why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...
Respectfully dude.... That doesn't always mean that. There are overweight people in wheelchairs. Ones that couldn't even walk while triing to lose weight.0 -
We don't need another "Starvation mode" thread. You are going to believe what you believe. Others will believe what they believe.
Let's give it a rest.
haha i see it as my DUTY to inform the uninformed MFPers with sound research--at least it gives them a firmer foundation to base their opinions on. if you don't like the thread don't respond. simple.
Considering how many threads and "facts" on here are pulled out of peoples' arses, it's nice to see someone do their homework. Thank you, love4.
you're welcome! I'm glad someone can appreciate it 0 -
It's not that starvation mode isn't real. The term is just overly used. You really have to try to kill yourself to put yourself in starvation mode to the point of where your organs are in trouble. Starvation mode is very rare.0
-
We don't need another "Starvation mode" thread. You are going to believe what you believe. Others will believe what they believe.
Let's give it a rest.
haha i see it as my DUTY to inform the uninformed MFPers with sound research--at least it gives them a firmer foundation to base their opinions on. if you don't like the thread don't respond.
Considering how many threads and "facts" on here are pulled out of peoples' arses, it's nice to see someone do their homework. Thank you, love4.
you're welcome! I'm glad someone can appreciate it
Much Appreciated! Thanks chic!
0 -
It's not that starvation mode isn't real. The term is just overly used. You really have to try to kill yourself to put yourself in starvation mode to the point of where your organs are in trouble leading to death. Starvation mode is very rare.
A point that I happily conceded--I just think that the common person doesn't know what else to call it because that is the commonly used (though wrongfully used) term.0 -
One last question. How do gastric bypass patients lose hundreds of pounds on only 500-1500 calories? Shouldn't starvation mode kick in a day or two after eating so few calories?0
-
Thanks for posting. I know that my body has adjusted to reduced caloric intake ... my appetite slows and my energy level dips so that I feel the urge to do less. I'm sure over an extended period of time it would let some of the weight go if I maintained that, but my goal is to feel better as well.
I'm still tweaking to find a healthy balance between exercise and caloric intake that doesn't leave me lethargic or feeling deprived.0 -
I was always skeptical of starvation mode theory. cutting cals is necessary. whether you cut diet or workout. you have to have a deficit.0
-
frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...
otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...
why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...
But yes ppl do this without exercise claiming they "just want to lose weight and don't care about getting muscle and stuff". True story0 -
One last question. How do gastric bypass patients lose hundreds of pounds on only 500-1500 calories? Shouldn't starvation mode kick in a day or two after eating so few calories?
This thread is refuting the idea of starvation mode (as it's often used here) but not the idea that the metabolism slows down when you restrict calories too much. Please read a little more closely.0 -
One last question. How do gastric bypass patients lose hundreds of pounds on only 500-1500 calories? Shouldn't starvation mode kick in a day or two after eating so few calories?
This thread is refuting the idea of starvation mode (as it's often used here) but not the idea that the metabolism slows down when you restrict calories too much. Please read a little more closely.
Agreed. Maybe we should call it "ur gonna eff up your meto mode"? Nah that's too long.0 -
I don't get what you're trying to prove. That a reduction in calories results in metabolic slowdown? I didn't think everyone was unaware of this. People need to learn more about diet breaks. They help normalize hormones and make cutting a breeze.0
-
Hey thanks. I'm going to read through the whole thing later (and some of the source literature). I'm really interested in the science behind all this.0
-
Hopefully people will read this, since I'm sure it is going to get buried in this thread, but in the first study I found (happens to be on post-menopausal women, so maybe some of the MFP crowd will find it interesting, they found this:
Table 2. Effect of a rapid WL or slow WL on body composition and metabolic risk factors.
Δ Post-baseline
Rapid WL (n = 5) Slow WL (n = 5)
Body weight (kg) −6.0 ± 0.7⎠−6.3 ± 1.1âŽ
Waist circumference (cm) −6.6 ± 3.3⎠−7.6 ± 4.1âŽ
Total FM (kg) −3.1 ± 1.2⎠−5.8 ± 1.7âŽâ€
Trunk FM (kg) −2.1 ± 0.9⎠−4.1 ± 1.4âŽâ€
Appendicular FM (kg) −0.9 ± 0.6⎠−1.6 ± 0.6âŽâ€
Total LBM (kg) −2.9 ± 1.6⎠−0.4 ± 1.2â€
Total cholesterol (mmol/L) −0.4 ± 0.6 −0.6 ± 0.7
Triglycerides (mmol/L) −0.1 ± 0.4 −0.6 ± 0.6âŽ
HDL-chol (mmol/L) −0.1 ± 0.1 −0.1 ± 0.1
LDL-chol (mmol/L) −0.1 ± 0.5 −0.2 ± 0.7
Resting systolic blood pressure (mmHg) −8.8 ± 10.7 −12.0 ± 11.5
Resting diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) −4.2 ± 4.9 −8.2 ± 2.7âŽ
Total daily caloric intake (kcal/day) −1338 ± 171⎠−465 ± 87âŽâ€
Estimated Physical activity level (0–793) 0 ± 33 −34 ± 61
Data are presented mean Δ ± SD.
(Energy content of weight loss: kinetic features during voluntary caloric restriction
Steven B. Heymsfielda, Diana Thomasb, Corby K. Martinc, Leanne M. Redmana, Boyd Straussd, Anja Bosy-Westphale, Manfred J. Müllere, Wei Shenf, Allison Martin Nguyeng)
Take home message: Sure, if you run a deficit of over a thousand, your weight loss quality will be inferior to a more modest, 500 calorie deficit... but note that the group with the lower intake was still the rapid weight loss group.
I agree with the OP in some respects, however, in the study she cites, 890 calories is the low calorie diet amount, which, for the obese participants, would probably be at least a 60-70% reduction from maintenance. And at month 6, they only could get statistical significance by combining the low and very low calorie groups. Take home message here is that dieting lowers your metabolic rate with respect to non-dieters. Dieting harder probably lowers your metabolism a little more. None of this justifies the current forum use of the phrase "starvation mode." This does not, however give evidence that 3500 calories is needed to lose a pound, it just says that if you always net 1200 calories, your weight loss will be non-linear because your deficit is not actually constant.0 -
Hopefully people will read this, since I'm sure it is going to get buried in this thread, but in the first study I found (happens to be on post-menopausal women, so maybe some of the MFP crowd will find it interesting, they found this:
Table 2. Effect of a rapid WL or slow WL on body composition and metabolic risk factors.
Δ Post-baseline
Rapid WL (n = 5) Slow WL (n = 5)
Body weight (kg) −6.0 ± 0.7⎠−6.3 ± 1.1âŽ
Waist circumference (cm) −6.6 ± 3.3⎠−7.6 ± 4.1âŽ
Total FM (kg) −3.1 ± 1.2⎠−5.8 ± 1.7âŽâ€
Trunk FM (kg) −2.1 ± 0.9⎠−4.1 ± 1.4âŽâ€
Appendicular FM (kg) −0.9 ± 0.6⎠−1.6 ± 0.6âŽâ€
Total LBM (kg) −2.9 ± 1.6⎠−0.4 ± 1.2â€
Total cholesterol (mmol/L) −0.4 ± 0.6 −0.6 ± 0.7
Triglycerides (mmol/L) −0.1 ± 0.4 −0.6 ± 0.6âŽ
HDL-chol (mmol/L) −0.1 ± 0.1 −0.1 ± 0.1
LDL-chol (mmol/L) −0.1 ± 0.5 −0.2 ± 0.7
Resting systolic blood pressure (mmHg) −8.8 ± 10.7 −12.0 ± 11.5
Resting diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) −4.2 ± 4.9 −8.2 ± 2.7âŽ
Total daily caloric intake (kcal/day) −1338 ± 171⎠−465 ± 87âŽâ€
Estimated Physical activity level (0–793) 0 ± 33 −34 ± 61
Data are presented mean Δ ± SD.
(Energy content of weight loss: kinetic features during voluntary caloric restriction
Steven B. Heymsfielda, Diana Thomasb, Corby K. Martinc, Leanne M. Redmana, Boyd Straussd, Anja Bosy-Westphale, Manfred J. Müllere, Wei Shenf, Allison Martin Nguyeng)
Take home message: Sure, if you run a deficit of over a thousand, your weight loss quality will be inferior to a more modest, 500 calorie deficit... but note that the group with the lower intake was still the rapid weight loss group.
I agree with the OP in some respects, however, in the study she cites, 890 calories is the low calorie diet amount, which, for the obese participants, would probably be at least a 60-70% reduction from maintenance. And at month 6, they only could get statistical significance by combining the low and very low calorie groups. Take home message here is that dieting lowers your metabolic rate with respect to non-dieters. Dieting harder probably lowers your metabolism a little more. None of this justifies the current forum use of the phrase "starvation mode." This does not, however give evidence that 3500 calories is needed to lose a pound, it just says that if you always net 1200 calories, your weight loss will be non-linear because your deficit is not actually constant.
awesome research. oh and btw--i never said "starvation mode" was a warranted term--just wanted to highlight the metabolic decline is all.0 -
frankly this whole idea of "starvation mode" is bunk if you are involved in a weight training regime...
otherwise, sure i can see how people who go into hypocaloric deficiets can be causing harm to themselves over the long term...
why anyone would try to lose weight by diet alone is beyond me, unless for some reason you are physically unable to exercise... that'd mean you're like so obese you can barely move, but for the rest of "us" get your rear end up and do something, weight training is for everyone...
But yes ppl do this without exercise claiming they "just want to lose weight and don't care about getting muscle and stuff". True story
weight training does not = adding all kinds of muscle... yet another misinformed person...0 -
It most definitely is real. I have been crash dieting for months and have barely lost a pound. I've been eating 2 modest, healthy meals a day for months with no snacking and no eating after 6pm for ages. Exercising a lot too but no weight loss. Been told it's because I'm not having enough calories and protein.0
-
copied this from another post i recently made...
seems to fit here...
the myth that low cal diets will slow your metabolism are unfounded...
In one study, researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change
-Webber J, Macdonald IA, The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women. British journal of nutrition 1994; 71:437-447.
In another study by a different group of researchers, people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate
-Heilbronn LK, et al. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005; 81:69-73
In addition, people who were on very low calorie diets and on a resistance exercise program (i.e. lifting weights) did not see a decrease in resting metabolic rate, and these people were only eating 800 Calories a day for 12 weeks
In another interesting study, women who ate half the amount of food that they normally eat for 3 days saw no change in their metabolism either
-Keim NL, Horn WF. Restrained eating behavior and the metabolic response to dietary energy restriction in women. Obesity research 2004; 12:141-149.
The bottom line is food has virtually nothing to do with your metabolism. In fact, your metabolism is much more closely tied to your bodyweight. If your weight goes up or down, so does your metabolism. The only other thing that can affect your metabolism (in both the short term and longer term) is exercise and weight loss. Even in the complete absence of food for three days, your metabolism remains unchanged.
Enough with the not eating enough will slow your metabolism people...0 -
I could find plenty evidence to suggest the contrary.
What you are saying goes against most modern research.
If you stop eating, your metabolism slows down to conserve energy, it's that simple.0 -
Very very very very very rareIt's not that starvation mode isn't real. The term is just overly used. You really have to try to kill yourself to put yourself in starvation mode to the point of where your organs are in trouble. Starvation mode is very rare.0
-
Thank you sooo much. I've been saying this forever.copied this from another post i recently made...
seems to fit here...
the myth that low cal diets will slow your metabolism are unfounded...
In one study, researchers found that the when they made people fast for 3 days, their metabolic rate did not change
-Webber J, Macdonald IA, The cardiovascular, metabolic and hormonal changes accompanying acute starvation in men and women. British journal of nutrition 1994; 71:437-447.
In another study by a different group of researchers, people who fasted every other day for a period of 22 days also had no decrease in their resting metabolic rate
-Heilbronn LK, et al. Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2005; 81:69-73
In addition, people who were on very low calorie diets and on a resistance exercise program (i.e. lifting weights) did not see a decrease in resting metabolic rate, and these people were only eating 800 Calories a day for 12 weeks
In another interesting study, women who ate half the amount of food that they normally eat for 3 days saw no change in their metabolism either
-Keim NL, Horn WF. Restrained eating behavior and the metabolic response to dietary energy restriction in women. Obesity research 2004; 12:141-149.
The bottom line is food has virtually nothing to do with your metabolism. In fact, your metabolism is much more closely tied to your bodyweight. If your weight goes up or down, so does your metabolism. The only other thing that can affect your metabolism (in both the short term and longer term) is exercise and weight loss. Even in the complete absence of food for three days, your metabolism remains unchanged.
Enough with the not eating enough will slow your metabolism people...0 -
This is why dieters just need to find what works for them and adjust as needed instead of getting all up in arms when people don't agree. We're all the same species, but that doesn't mean a diet method is going to work universally, ever. If eating more than MFP recommends works for you, do it. If restricting works better, do that. If the only way you can succeed at losing weight is to walk backwards around a bonfire while singing "Take Me Out To The Ball Game", go for it.
Treat giving solicited advice as just that, instead of arguing endlessly or getting offended when someone gives advice that doesn't jive with what worked for you.0
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