Starvation Mode

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9/n11s/full/oby2001133a.html


"Although 70% of the sample reported adopting one of these behaviors over 4 years, the behaviors were maintained for a median duration of only 18 to 40 weeks (Figure 1). Despite this fact, subjects engaging in calorie reduction for 48 weeks over a 4-year period achieved a cumulative weight loss of 2.8 lb, whereas behaviors involving more drastic changes in energy intake were less successful."

"A different approach used to achieve dietary energy reduction is based on prescribing a fixed energy deficit based on estimated (or measured) energy expenditure. Because reported energy intakes, even with expert dietitians, are prone to under-reporting and under-recording (20) (21), energy requirements are calculated from equations based on weight, age, and sex (22). A diet providing a 500- to 600-kcal/d deficit, but balanced in macronutrients, can be constructed; it can be predicted that, if followed, weight loss of 0.5 kg/wk should ensue. One study in a hospital dietetic clinic, not randomized, showed greater weight loss with such a prescribed 600-kcal deficit diet compared with a conventional low-calorie (1200 kcal/d) diet (23). This study has been influential in the United Kingdom and in the design of low-calorie diets as adjunct to pharmacotherapy in clinical trials (24)."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17539863

"Weight loss was significant in both groups, but was greater in Group A2 than in Group A1. There was no significant correlation between weight loss and energy deficit. In a selected group of patients from Group A2 who were prescribed energy intake close to the recommended deficit of 500 kcal, weight loss was found to be significantly greater (P<0.05) when compared to the weight loss in Group A1."


http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/2/346.full

"The universally recognized but little studied phenomenon of low efficacy of LCD weight loss led us to look for possible underlying mechanisms. We examined 2 mechanisms, improved FEA and energetic adaptation to under-feeding. A third potential mechanism, low adherence to the prescribed energy deficit, was the default selection that was based on deductive logic after analysis of the first 2 mechanisms. Our findings, here formulated on the surprisingly limited available literature, identify low patient adherence to the prescribed energy deficit as the main basis for the modest weight loss of LCDs."


http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.full

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

Some light reading for those who are bored...

starvation mode for me its a huge myth.... Ok, lets accept the fact that eating 500 calories everyday would be dangerous for your body, cause you are not getting enough nutrients/protein/vitamins/calcium etc...
But no way you would enter a starvation mode, or, explain anorexia to me, those girls barely eat 500 cal a day, and they keep losing weight.
I normally eat 900-1100 a day (ive never gone over my daily 1200), and look, 37 lbs less!.. And Im never hungry, i feel satified with what I eat, nothing in this world would change my mind about it. Maybe if i was eating the 900-1100 and i was with the 200 lbs i had before, i would believe it, but not when im a few pounds away from the 150s.

So again , that starvation mode is BS for me.. IMO

Halleluja!

It is used as a scare tactic. Nothing more. I don't even bother completing my daily log as it gives me the annoying message every time. If starvation mode as it is used on this board existed then you are correct, gastric bypass would not work and anorexics would not be under weight. I am not making fun of anyone, especially those with and ED. I'm saying that if starvation mode worked as "advertised" then it would not be an issue.

BTW - In 6 months I have only twice consumed more than 1,200 calories and I have lost over 85lbs, lost almost no muscle mass, and increased me HDL (good cholesterol). This calorie amount was recommend by both my MD and nutritionist who said that women can lose weight perfectly healthy on 1,200 per day. I defer to their judgement over a website.

THIS...

My doctor flat out told me "Starvation mode? You know somalia thats starvation mode..eat sensibly and get off your *kitten*"

No, that's starvation and an entirely different thing to what people are talking about here. People here are talking about metabolic slowdown and catabolism as a result of extreme calorie restriction and just use an unfortunate name that people zero in on, rather than the actual effects and causes.

And have you ever heard of Goodwin's Law?

Nope. Is it like Godwin's Law ?

It should be pretty obvious - yes that was a typo. *Slow clap for noticing*

..but the eat more to lose more crowd I have witnessed myself in the gym has the tendency to stuff their faces all day full of crap then they want to sit on the treadmill for 2 hours trying to burn it up...again this an extreme on the other side probably not the norm.

It's hard to find ppl in the gym who are actually doing it the right way.

Certain things to keep in mind.
1) Eat at Maintenance and create a caloric deficit by working out is optimal for a sustainable "diet" or lifestyle.
My method is using the Fat 2 Fit site for optimal numbers.
Fat 2 Fit gives 20% below TDEE from info about Age, height, weight, body fat and activity.
Use cardiovascular work if you have CV issues and not to burn fat.
CV work offers no afterburn and causes too much stress on the system.
Weight lifting or HIIT is the optimal method for fat burn and maintaining lean mass or in some cases building it.
Unless you are Obese II or III or genetic superior you cannot build lean mass on a deficit.

2) Restricting calories then working out for sustained periods of time have shown to have more catabolic effects on lean mass.
This is pointed to the people who are working out 5-7 days a week or twice a day.
The human body can only burn so much fat in a day before hormonal switches start using lean mass for fuel.

The best long lasting results would be for people to embrace proper nutrition first, rest well and recover and workout 2-4 times a week for 20-60 mins a session.

My point is you need to eat smart and move smart to lose and keep off weight.

I have a feeling that if you were to restrict calories 40-50% Below TDEE like some of us are, at some point the diminishing returns will add up resulting in a plateau or worse.

Freaking amen.

This should be the ONLY post in this entire thread...seriously.

I agree!! People keep referring to anorexics as their "proof" that you can eat too little and still lose weight. DUH!! Of course you can. The problem is that once your body goes into starvation mode, it takes the nutrients and protein from wherever it can. It is an unbalanced way to lose weight. Most women are probably fine on 1200 a day...just don't starve yourselves and keep up a balanced diet.

Just a suggestion to the folks who don't get enough calories in their day...If by the end of the day if I feel like I may have really shorted myself, I just have a glass of skim milk and a handful of almonds. It doesn't make me feel overly full and its several hundred calories added.

Swap the skim for whole milk and you'll really be in business!

I've read all nine pages on this thread, read most of the articles everyone on both sides links to, and I think I'm even more confused about this whole BMR/calories relationship than I was when I started I have an appointment with a nutritionist in July, but basically, here's what I'm confused about:

MFP says that I have to net 1200 calories a day to lose 2 lbs per week, and that's what it recommends. But it ALSO says that my BMR is about 1590. Counting calories and watching portion size, I usually net between 1100-1500 calories a day. The days I eat closer to 1500 calories, regardless of whether or not I exercise, regardless of what I eat, are the only days I'm not hungry all day. The days I stick to 1200 or go just under, I'm hungry all day and have low energy. But that's what MFP is recommending.

So I don't get it. Is MFP telling me I need to net 1590 calories a day, or 1200? That is, do you have to net the calories of your BMR or below that to lose weight healthfully? I hope that makes sense. If anyone has some useful links, books or other resources, I'd appreciate it.

Are you set to lose 2lb/week? If so, that means that MFP has subtracted 1000 calories off of your TDEE. If TDEE minus 1000 calories came out to less than 1200, it enforces a mandatory minimum of 1200. SO, If you chose sedentary, your multiplier is 1.2, so
1590 x 1.2 = 1908 (TDEE)
1908-1000 = 908 (calorie limit to lose 2 lb/week)
908 is rounded to 1200 because of minimum limit.

Based on that, you can see that 2 lb/week is too high of a weekly weight loss goal for you. Consider a lower weekly goal, which will be more comfortable, and much more likely to maintain long term.

I agree with you all...I eat about 1250 calories a day and I have lost about 80 pounds now...Nothing is wrong with me...I'm full and it works for me..I think it's just to scare you:) Do what makes you comfortable, and what works for you:)

I agree with you all...I eat about 1250 calories a day and I have lost about 80 pounds now...Nothing is wrong with me...I'm full and it works for me..I think it's just to scare you:) Do what makes you comfortable, and what works for you:)

I would like to ask you one simple question,

You've lost 80lbs but I would love to know the body composition change, Fat % Lean Muscle Mass , etc...

Lose weight is nice but it's how you're losing it that counts

Are you set to lose 2lb/week? If so, that means that MFP has subtracted 1000 calories off of your TDEE. If TDEE minus 1000 calories came out to less than 1200, it enforces a mandatory minimum of 1200. SO, If you chose sedentary, your multiplier is 1.2, so
1590 x 1.2 = 1908 (TDEE)
1908-1000 = 908 (calorie limit to lose 2 lb/week)
908 is rounded to 1200 because of minimum limit.

Based on that, you can see that 2 lb/week is too high of a weekly weight loss goal for you. Consider a lower weekly goal, which will be more comfortable, and much more likely to maintain long term.

Thanks for your reply. I'm really sorry, but I'm even more confused now. I think there's just something here I'm not getting or getting stuck on or something. Where do these numbers come from? What formula is the right one?

I'm unclear as to whether this makes a difference, but I'm not at all inactive or sedentary - I do work in front of a computer, but I exercise (yoga nearly daily on my breaks, Zumba classes, some strength/weight training 2-3 times a week, hiking/walking briskly for an hour 4-6x/week) almost every day. Since I started tracking my calories with MFP, I've noticed some days I HAVE to consume 2200+ calories just to net 1200 calories for the day. I was already vegetarian/ mostly vegan; the only real dietary changes I've made to cut back on calories is that I'm no longer drinking soda - and I was drinking half a liter or more a few times a week before - also stopped having dessert with every meal and cut back on butter and baked sweets. I haven't noticed any difference in my energy levels; I'm just hungry a lot more the closer my net calories get to 1200. I am consistently losing 1-3 lbs a week, though.

I really just want to know how many calories I should be netting to lose weight in a healthy way, just so I have some kind of guideline, and I'm getting the feeling the MFP numbers aren't right for me. So how do people figure it out?

Now your question is getting in to the murky territory of eating back your exercise calories. My opinion is you should net your BMR (so 1509) and never ever net below 1200. I myself am guilty of breaking this rule on days with a lot of cardio, but it's what I *aim* to do everyday. I think all of the formulas are just a starting point, and there is a lot of trial and error in getting the right formula for your individual body. I'm a bit confused by:

I'm just hungry a lot more the closer my net calories get to 1200.

Do you mean that you are hungrier the more you eat or you're hungry the less you eat? If it's that you're finding yourself hungry from eating more, that's a good thing, it means your metabolism is fired up. If you're hungry from eating less, then you probably need to eat more calories, closer to your BMR or higher.

I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, the thread is too long to read the whole thing! but this was a really interesting article that ran in the New York Times Magazine earlier this year (it's called "The Fat Trap" by Tara Parker Pope), it concerns very recent research that has been done on weight gain, weight loss, maintenance and metabolic changes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html

The study the article is about was published in the New England Journal of Medicine 10/27/11, it's called "Long-Term Persistence of Hormonal Adaptations to Weight Loss" and here's the link:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816

here's the link to the "discussion" which is easier to read:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816#t=articleDiscussion

It is used as a scare tactic. Nothing more. I don't even bother completing my daily log as it gives me the annoying message every time. If starvation mode as it is used on this board existed then you are correct, gastric bypass would not work and anorexics would not be under weight. I am not making fun of anyone, especially those with and ED. I'm saying that if starvation mode worked as "advertised" then it would not be an issue.

BTW - In 6 months I have only twice consumed more than 1,200 calories and I have lost over 85lbs, lost almost no muscle mass, and increased me HDL (good cholesterol). This calorie amount was recommend by both my MD and nutritionist who said that women can lose weight perfectly healthy on 1,200 per day. I defer to their judgement over a website.

Do you also work out only eating 1,200 calories a day? I can burn 1,200 in a day! That means I would be giving my body nothing to fuel on.

starvation mode for me its a huge myth.... Ok, lets accept the fact that eating 500 calories everyday would be dangerous for your body, cause you are not getting enough nutrients/protein/vitamins/calcium etc...
But no way you would enter a starvation mode, or, explain anorexia to me, those girls barely eat 500 cal a day, and they keep losing weight.
I normally eat 900-1100 a day (ive never gone over my daily 1200), and look, 37 lbs less!.. And Im never hungry, i feel satified with what I eat, nothing in this world would change my mind about it. Maybe if i was eating the 900-1100 and i was with the 200 lbs i had before, i would believe it, but not when im a few pounds away from the 150s.

So again , that starvation mode is BS for me.. IMO

eating like this will work for a short time if you were previously eating a lot more. Anorexics lose weight because they eat NOTHING and your body begins using the fat cells and muscle they do have to survive. HAve you ever seen a sexy anorexic? Starving yourself will not work for long unless you are eating nothing. Soon you will plateau at 900-1000 calories a day....trust me I have been there! low calories is the reason I need to lose weight because my body needed more and began holding everything I put in! I could work out 8 hours a day and scale would not move! Please do not encourage anyone to eat such a low amount of calories. Skinny fat is not healthy in any way.

OKAY heres a scare tactic for you. starvation mode makes your hair fall out, makes your periods stop, makes your nails chip, your skin turn gaunt and yellow and your breath to STINK. what the hell is wrong with nourishing yourself? maybe THATS the reason you cant seem to keep the weight off.



thats me eating 600-800 cals a day, about 3 months into my sickness. starvation mode is REAL. and do NOT educate people on matters that you know very little about. it doesnt happen over night, of course, BUT if you religiously eat way less than 1,200 cals a day there are going to be inevitable health complications. that simply is NOT ENOUGH calories to sustain an active lifestyle! CMON GUYS LETS BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES HERE!

THANK YOU!!!