call it what you want "starvation mode" is REAL

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 ± 1.1⁎
Waist circumference (cm) −6.6 ± 3.3⁎ −7.6 ± 4.1⁎
Total FM (kg) −3.1 ± 1.2⁎ −5.8 ± 1.7⁎†
Trunk FM (kg) −2.1 ± 0.9⁎ −4.1 ± 1.4⁎†
Appendicular FM (kg) −0.9 ± 0.6⁎ −1.6 ± 0.6⁎†
Total LBM (kg) −2.9 ± 1.6⁎ −0.4 ± 1.2†
Total cholesterol (mmol/L) −0.4 ± 0.6 −0.6 ± 0.7
Triglycerides (mmol/L) −0.1 ± 0.4 −0.6 ± 0.6⁎
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 ± 2.7⁎
Total daily caloric intake (kcal/day) −1338 ± 171⁎ −465 ± 87⁎†
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.

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...

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...

Very very very very very rare

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.

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.

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...

thanks for this. i have never had a stall out in weight loss by restricting. i also did weight training and looked amazing. i felt satisfied and never weak or hungry.

"I see ribs, but okay then..."

you have GOT to be kidding me - to imply ANYTHING negative about her body is ridiculous. she busts her *kitten* and eats more than most men and she's WORKED for that body and those incredible abs.

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...

Are you really citing these studies to argue this point? One study done for 3days, another for 22 days....Really?????.... Really :huh:

I see ribs, but okay then...

Are you kidding me? This girl busts her butt working out and eats a crap ton of food for her beautiful ABS. I weigh more than Love does and I'm pretty sure she could bench press me any day of the week.