Starvation mode?
Replies
-
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.
I have a lot of excess body fat.
I'm enough of a prick to use myself to prove the folks who don't understand basic biology/physiology wrong here.
Brb going to eat 500 calories a day.0 -
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.
I have a lot of excess body fat.
I'm enough of a prick to use myself to prove the folks who don't understand basic biology/physiology wrong here.
Brb going to eat 500 calories a day.
Although I appreciate the offer, a sample size of 1 is probably not going to provide enough power to reach statistical significance. Scientist here...I'm not too terribly impressed with case studies.0 -
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
This is so wrong, please understand that there is no evidence to indicate eating 6 small meals makes your metabolism faster. Your metabolism and food are really not that closely related. Your weight is what influences your metabolism. The heavier you are, the faster your metabolism, as you lose weight your metabolism slows down. It has nothing to do with eating regularly - this is a myth.0 -
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.
I have a lot of excess body fat.
I'm enough of a prick to use myself to prove the folks who don't understand basic biology/physiology wrong here.
Brb going to eat 500 calories a day.
Although I appreciate the offer, a sample size of 1 is probably not going to provide enough power to reach statistical significance. Scientist here...I'm not too terribly impressed with case studies.
Not trying to 'bust your *kitten* here' but you gave your own experience, a sample of one, as an example in the opening thread. Also, as a scientist, you know that in order to even make those assertions on a sample of one you would need to measure your base readings - for example, metabolism and BF%.
I can give my own experience where I believe that my metabolism was shot due to being on a VLCD due to an illness - now there was absolutely no control there either - so I get where you are coming from. Until there are studies that categorically show one way or the other, there will always be this debate, a lot of which comes from peoples beliefs due to their own experiences or anecdotally from others.
The way I look at it really - is why risk it? That being said, I do not have a huge amount of weight to lose and I understand people have different circumstances and the cost/benefits will be different for everyone.0 -
Did you check your metabolism and BF% before and after?
Nope...wasn't really planning on losing weight at all.0 -
Agree. Starvation mode is a myth per every real study done on the subject. It takes months for substantial metabolic down regulation, and even then it only accounts for a couple hundred calories per day in a worst case scenario. People here confuse undercounting calories, over counting calories burned in exercise, not tracking "cheat days" and water retention for "starvation mode".0
-
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.
I have a lot of excess body fat.
I'm enough of a prick to use myself to prove the folks who don't understand basic biology/physiology wrong here.
Brb going to eat 500 calories a day.
Although I appreciate the offer, a sample size of 1 is probably not going to provide enough power to reach statistical significance. Scientist here...I'm not too terribly impressed with case studies.
Not trying to 'bust your *kitten* here' but you gave your own experience, a sample of one, as an example in the opening thread. Also, as a scientist, you know that in order to even make those assertions on a sample of one you would need to measure your base readings - for example, metabolism and BF%.
I can give my own experience where I believe that my metabolism was shot due to being on a VLCD due to an illness - now there was absolutely no control there either - so I get where you are coming from. Until there are studies that categorically show one way or the other, there will always be this debate, a lot of which comes from peoples beliefs due to their own experiences or anecdotally from others.
The way I look at it really - is why risk it? That being said, I do not have a huge amount of weight to lose and I understand people have different circumstances and the cost/benefits will be different for everyone.
Sorry...wish I had done some research before posting. I did provide a scientific source about when "starvation mode" (AKA loss of lean muscle mass) actually DOES occur a few posts down the front page. (At a net caloric intake of -1200.)0 -
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.
I have a lot of excess body fat.
I'm enough of a prick to use myself to prove the folks who don't understand basic biology/physiology wrong here.
Brb going to eat 500 calories a day.
Although I appreciate the offer, a sample size of 1 is probably not going to provide enough power to reach statistical significance. Scientist here...I'm not too terribly impressed with case studies.
Not trying to 'bust your *kitten* here' but you gave your own experience, a sample of one, as an example in the opening thread. Also, as a scientist, you know that in order to even make those assertions on a sample of one you would need to measure your base readings - for example, metabolism and BF%.
I can give my own experience where I believe that my metabolism was shot due to being on a VLCD due to an illness - now there was absolutely no control there either - so I get where you are coming from. Until there are studies that categorically show one way or the other, there will always be this debate, a lot of which comes from peoples beliefs due to their own experiences or anecdotally from others.
The way I look at it really - is why risk it? That being said, I do not have a huge amount of weight to lose and I understand people have different circumstances and the cost/benefits will be different for everyone.
Sorry...wish I had done some research before posting. I did provide a scientific source about when "starvation mode" (AKA loss of lean muscle mass) actually DOES occur a few posts down the front page. (At a net caloric intake of -1200.)
I was more referring to the metabolism aspect (which I know is not true starvation mode - but its often used in that context).0 -
U would definitely have to have basically no body fat at all and hardly eat anything to enter a real "starvation mode". It drives me crazy when people correct my diet saying that I am putting myself in "starvation mode". Umm, no.. I'm fat! LOL
Heather0 -
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.
I have a lot of excess body fat.
I'm enough of a prick to use myself to prove the folks who don't understand basic biology/physiology wrong here.
Brb going to eat 500 calories a day.
Although I appreciate the offer, a sample size of 1 is probably not going to provide enough power to reach statistical significance. Scientist here...I'm not too terribly impressed with case studies.
Not trying to 'bust your *kitten* here' but you gave your own experience, a sample of one, as an example in the opening thread. Also, as a scientist, you know that in order to even make those assertions on a sample of one you would need to measure your base readings - for example, metabolism and BF%.
I can give my own experience where I believe that my metabolism was shot due to being on a VLCD due to an illness - now there was absolutely no control there either - so I get where you are coming from. Until there are studies that categorically show one way or the other, there will always be this debate, a lot of which comes from peoples beliefs due to their own experiences or anecdotally from others.
The way I look at it really - is why risk it? That being said, I do not have a huge amount of weight to lose and I understand people have different circumstances and the cost/benefits will be different for everyone.
Sorry...wish I had done some research before posting. I did provide a scientific source about when "starvation mode" (AKA loss of lean muscle mass) actually DOES occur a few posts down the front page. (At a net caloric intake of -1200.)
I was more referring to the metabolism aspect (which I know is not true starvation mode - but its often used in that context).
Ahhh! Too many definitions for "starvation mode."0 -
I was more referring to the metabolism aspect (which I know is not true starvation mode - but its often used in that context).
Ahhh! Too many definitions for "starvation mode."
Yep - and that is where a lot of the confusion comes I think. It's bandied around everywhere which sort of clutters and distracts from the crux of the issue.0 -
I think it can exist over a period of time and I know how I felt because at one point (3 years ago) I had felt strong I was eating consistently and things like that and then as the years progressed and the stresses of school and my personal life got stronger I ate less and less. A few months ago I was unable to do a workout set I had done with ease before. Maybe my muscles had gotten idk eaten away or whatever for energy or maybe they just got weak but I think if someone doesn't eat properly or enough for a long time that their body can go into this sort of mode.0
-
Starvation mode does exist. It is referred to as going into Ketosis. Your body chemistry does change and you give off some strange odors. Your breath and urine have odors that personal hygiene just can't fix. While going through the first 3-4 weeks after having gastric bypass, I went into an expected stage of ketosis while I could only consume minimal amounts of protein and liquids. Once my body started adapting and I could add soft food, the ketosis ended and the odors went away. It is very real, yes it can be dangerous when not in a controlled situation. It can affect your heart, liver, kidneys, etc.0
-
Starvation mode does exist. It is referred to as going into Ketosis. Your body chemistry does change and you give off some strange odors. Your breath and urine have odors that personal hygiene just can't fix. While going through the first 3-4 weeks after having gastric bypass, I went into an expected stage of ketosis while I could only consume minimal amounts of protein and liquids. Once my body started adapting and I could add soft food, the ketosis ended and the odors went away. It is very real, yes it can be dangerous when not in a controlled situation. It can affect your heart, liver, kidneys, etc.
Looked up ketosis on wikipedia. Not the best source, of course...I'm getting a little lazy right now. It occurs not when you have a large caloric deficit, but when you aren't eating nearly enough carbohydrates. (Which is a bit different from what most people on this site refer to as "starvation mode.")
Apparently, ketosis is especially dangerous for type I diabetics and alcoholics. It looks like there's actually some debate about whether or not ketosis is all that bad for others. Inuits have lived for a long time on ketogenic diets, and there are actually *advocates* for ketogenic diets for normal, healthy adults.0 -
Yes, it is a myth. There is some truth to it, probably why it persists, but for the most part it isn't something you'll ever need to worry about. That is why I've been asking for some sort of authoritative resource for MFP members. So many of them will just take what others say as the truth and it is hard to combat this since you will just be shouted down or drowned out by others. I have no more authority than the next guy but I'll try to back up what I say with a solid reference. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to research and get the answers on their own but there is no reason why it couldn't be easier, especially considering it is usually the same questions that are asked over and over.0
-
Agree. Starvation mode is a myth per every real study done on the subject. It takes months for substantial metabolic down regulation, and even then it only accounts for a couple hundred calories per day in a worst case scenario. People here confuse undercounting calories, over counting calories burned in exercise, not tracking "cheat days" and water retention for "starvation mode".
this, exactly this ^^0 -
Restricting calories during weight loss lowers metabolism1 because the body becomes more efficient, requiring fewer calories to perform the necessary daily functions for survival. Consequently, this can slow (but not stop) the anticipated rate of weight loss.
For example, if an individual needs 2,000 calories per day to maintain weight, reducing intake to 1,500 calories, assuming exercise stays the same, should provide a 1 pound per week weight loss (Note: 1 pound of weight is equivalent to about 3,500 calories). Furthermore, reducing to 1,000 calories should result in a weight loss of 2 pounds per week and going down to 500 calories a day should result in a weight loss of 3 pounds per week. However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.0 -
Starvation mode does exist. It is referred to as going into Ketosis. Your body chemistry does change and you give off some strange odors. Your breath and urine have odors that personal hygiene just can't fix. While going through the first 3-4 weeks after having gastric bypass, I went into an expected stage of ketosis while I could only consume minimal amounts of protein and liquids. Once my body started adapting and I could add soft food, the ketosis ended and the odors went away. It is very real, yes it can be dangerous when not in a controlled situation. It can affect your heart, liver, kidneys, etc.
Looked up ketosis on wikipedia. Not the best source, of course...I'm getting a little lazy right now. It occurs not when you have a large caloric deficit, but when you aren't eating nearly enough carbohydrates. (Which is a bit different from what most people on this site refer to as "starvation mode.")
Apparently, ketosis is especially dangerous for type I diabetics and alcoholics. It looks like there's actually some debate about whether or not ketosis is all that bad for others. Inuits have lived for a long time on ketogenic diets, and there are actually *advocates* for ketogenic diets for normal, healthy adults.
Atkins is a good example. Lots of super fat people go on The Atkins Diet and remove carbs completely from their diets and receive all their brain functioning nutrients (carbohydrates) from Ketosis. They are not starving.. still not "starvation mode".0 -
Thank you for starting this OP. I think the term starvation mode gets thrown around way too much around here but have never said anything.0
-
I could run better if I were an Elephant seal. They can reduce their heart rate to a few beats per minute and hold their breath up to a half an hour. Carry on...0
-
My BMR is probably 70 calories an hour, not sure how the starvation mode believers think I sleep at night without eating all the time. I think the brain uses 400 -600 calories a day.
Here are some links to a British study that put some obese type II diabetics on a VLCD to see if they could be de-fatted enough to get their pancreas and liver working again..
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes
http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf
Edited highlights :
600 calories per day diet - 500 from meal replacement complete diet, 100 from veg
8 weeks
Average weight loss 15.3 kg (34 lbs) ~15% of initial body weight
12 weeks after diet (ie week 20) average weight regain was 3.1 kg
These guys are imaging specialists (MRI) and the breakdown of the weight loss was
"Weight loss was 3.9±0.2 kg during the first week (61% of
which was fat loss), 5.7±0.6 kg (86% as fat) between
weeks 1 and 4, and 5.7±0.7 kg (94% as fat) during the final
4 weeks"0 -
bump0
-
Starvation mode defies the law of conservation of mass.0
-
This thread delivers!0
-
It's not necessarily "starvation mode" but it does slow your metabolism over time. I've heard it like this: Your metabolism is like a fire. And in order to keep the fire burning optimally, you need to feed it by putting logs on the fire. So, to translate that to food, you should eat regularly spaced small meals throughout the day to keep your metabolism running at optimal levels. Skipping meals makes the fire burn slowly, so you're not burning as many calories.
Do you have a source for this? LeoQuin posted a thread from last year with a few good sources that indicate that a person's metabolism doesn't change for a few day after they stop eating. And when it does change, it changes negligibly.
I have a lot of excess body fat.
I'm enough of a prick to use myself to prove the folks who don't understand basic biology/physiology wrong here.
Brb going to eat 500 calories a day.
So while yes, one person is not enough to dissuade people who want to ignore the basics of physics, I'm following through.
After that post on Saturday I pretty much stopped eating.
Yesterday? About 700 calories of whey protein mixed with unsweetened almond milk. I had one brief moment of tiredness and a pang of hunger before bed which I fed with an 80 calorie home made snack.
Today will be less, and I just got done working out too. I actually woke up with quite a bit of energy, I had to remind myself to eat something before going to the office. Monday is the start of my lifting routine as well. So was I suffering in my weight lifting because my body was so frantic consuming my muscle to keep me alive?
Nope, my max from last week became my new working weight across the board; so 5lbs up on everything. Cardio after was a breeze and I feel like I could have kept going if I wasn't constrained by having to get back to the office.
Go go excess fat fueled awesomeness!0 -
The only way you gain weight is by consuming more calories than you burn. The starvation mode is a myth. If you look at people in third world countries, they are not able to consume much food at all and they are skin and bones. If the Starvation mode existed, then they would be fat based on that theory.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