The starvation mode lie
Options
Replies
-
People with eating disorders can experience a phenomenon where they initially lose weight when calories get increased, but this doesn't fit the average poster at MFP.
I've seen people tell a normal weight woman who doesn't exercise that she is in starvation mode at an average of 1500 calories a day (sometimes more, sometimes less.) I'd be shocked if a normal weight woman who doesn't exercise a lot and eats a range each week of 1300-1900 calories is truly starving.0 -
I lost a ton of weight - 50 pounds - by exercising 10-12 hours a week and restricting calories to around 1200-1500 per day - some days I did indulge a bit. Took about 6 months. I got plantar faciitis in both of my feet and had to stop running. Once I cut back on my exercise the weight quickly came back on, without much change to my diet. Just 3 years ago I was tracking calories on the bodybugg and my food - every bite including every piece of cake, every cookie and every slice of pizza. There was no way I was eating 7,000 calories more a week than my body needed yet it held onto every calorie I ate and in one weekend I would gain 2 pounds. I was also burning 3,000 a day most days yet still was gaining weight.
Yes, I believe it happens. Especially if your body is used to VLCD on a consistent basis.0 -
First you hint at a claim that your metabolism increases on a fast based on a difficulty processing fat reserves for energy. This is true but only in the very short term (the number I've seen used most is up to 72 hours)blah blah blah
So yes, please explain how my metabolism slows down if I stop eating and am classified as obese?
Then you claim adaptive thermogenesis is unproven.Which is a theory related to supposed genetic set points related to weight gain in those who have lost weight.
blah blah blah
Then you go on to say that all you really wanted to do was clear up misconceptions about 'starvation mode' and the actual effects of extreme calorie restriction or fasting on obese individualsYou mistake clarification of facts with me advocating voluntary anorexia.
blah blah blah
To say that the metabolism is "stifled" (which is what you emphasised before staying simply slowed down) in the case of an extreme calorie deficit is simply wrong.
blah blah blah
Problem is you did a horrible job explaining things and primarily just referenced extreme cases that no one was talking about. I'd like to direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
At the end of the day a few important things need to be mentioned:
1) People, in general, are HORRIBLE at accurately measuring calorie intake (and are even worse at measuring calorie expenditure). Even scientific studies mess this up as it really is a PITA to do. In general, if you are having issues with weight loss or are not seeing the results you were expecting, that should be the first area that you look over critically. Chances are it's off, the question is by how much and if you can feasibly improve your precision. There are many cases of folks saying that they're on this extreme diet, when they are in fact underestimating their calorie intake (and/or overestimating expenditure if they're eating back exercise cals) or not taking into account the cheat day they had recently, etc. If you are actually on such an extreme diet (netting 250 calories a day and other such cases), your first and foremost goal should be getting help, the kind that you cannot find from an online forum.
2) In the short term, your metabolism does increase on a fast (http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html myth #4), but if restricting calories over an extended period of time, this will result in a slowdown of your metabolism. The direct hit to your metabolism is not going to exceed the increased deficit, but it could have a more substantial impact on your TDEE. What this means practically speaking, is that if you don't eat enough, you might notice your energy levels in the crapper, and have crummy workouts or move around less throughout the day, etc. This reduction in activity would increase the TDEE reduction, thereby further moderating the total loss from calorie restriction. This would be that light headedness you may feel when trying to run on an empty stomach or why lifting is so much easier when you aren't being as strict with your diet.
3) One major concern with extreme diets is the ratio of LBM loss to fat loss. It's pretty much a given that when losing weight you'll lose some muscle, but the idea is to minimize that loss as much as possible. Extreme diets make such goals very difficult if not impossible to achieve. This is talked about a lot in Lyle McDonald's book 'The Rapid Fatloss Handbook'.
4) All this being said, the magnitude of the deficit a very obese individual can safely sustain when dieting is much larger than that of someone only looking to lose a few pounds. See http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html
5) Measuring body weight is an easy endeavor, but what that gain or loss signifies can be a whole number of things. Someone on the atkins diet who eats 1000 calories of pasta will likely notice a large weight increase, on the order of magnitude of pounds. This isn't because they somehow gained 3 pounds eating that pasta, the thousand calories at most could only equate to less than a third of a pound gain, and that's if you're already at maintenance. Water weight, bodily functions, etc etc etc all play into the number on the scale and can muddle your actual results.
6) The final big thing is that extreme diets are unsustainable. You can lose a whole mess of weight very quickly on an apple and a cig a day (Christian Bale's 'diet' in The Machinist), but you won't look very good at the end of it (see The Machinist) and the likelihood of you falling off your diet and gaining all that weight back is very high. More moderate diets tend to be easier to stick to, and tend to result in a smoother transition to maintenance once you do reach your goals.
People on the one hand saying 'your body holds onto every calorie and you gain weight' are overstating adaptive thermogenesis, but that doesn't make claims to concentration camp survivors not being in starvation mode any more correct.0 -
People on the one hand saying 'your body holds onto every calorie and you gain weight' are overstating adaptive thermogenesis, but that doesn't make claims to concentration camp survivors not being in starvation mode any more correct.
Excellent post.
And for the record, I do believe that if anyone posting here has recently been held in a Nazi-style concentration camp, they may just be in starvation mode.
--P0 -
Who cares if it does or does not exist.
I don't care what you call it but I was NOT losing weight on 1200 calories a day. I tried for over a year and I was not over estimating my food etc. I've been in the weight loss game since I was 12 and have always struggled, including having an ED and not losing then either.
Well, I care because I want to make the best decisions I can about my diet and health and there is a lot of conflicting information presented as fact on this message board. I don't have an emotional attachment to any particular position. I only care about the truth.
I've been pretty conflicted about 'eating my exercise calories' or going up to the recommended calorie intake because I am not normally hungry for them. I'd prefer to stay under the limit and lose a bit extra. But there are a lot of warnings on this forum about going into starvation mode and 'eat more to lose more'. It almost seems as though if I only eat 1200 cals instead of 1500 and don't eat the 300 cals I burnt spinning then I am going to stall or even gain. On the face of it this seems crazy to me but a lot of people have testified that this has been their experience.0 -
Who cares if it does or does not exist.
I don't care what you call it but I was NOT losing weight on 1200 calories a day. I tried for over a year and I was not over estimating my food etc. I've been in the weight loss game since I was 12 and have always struggled, including having an ED and not losing then either.
Well, I care because I want to make the best decisions I can about my diet and health and there is a lot of conflicting information presented as fact on this message board. I don't have an emotional attachment to any particular position. I only care about the truth.
I've been pretty conflicted about 'eating my exercise calories' or going up to the recommended calorie intake because I am not normally hungry for them. I'd prefer to stay under the limit and lose a bit extra. But there are a lot of warnings on this forum about going into starvation mode and 'eat more to lose more'. It almost seems as though if I only eat 1200 cals instead of 1500 and don't eat the 300 cals I burnt spinning then I am going to stall or even gain. On the face of it this seems crazy to me but a lot of people have testified that this has been their experience.
My point is that it doesn't matter what you call it, this phenomenon of weight loss slowing for people who aren't eating enough actually does happen as per mine and thousands of others experiences.
If you're really conflicted, join the group "eat more to weigh less" on here and read through the stickies.0 -
People with eating disorders can experience a phenomenon where they initially lose weight when calories get increased, but this doesn't fit the average poster at MFP.
I've seen people tell a normal weight woman who doesn't exercise that she is in starvation mode at an average of 1500 calories a day (sometimes more, sometimes less.) I'd be shocked if a normal weight woman who doesn't exercise a lot and eats a range each week of 1300-1900 calories is truly starving.
Yes a 1300-1900 calorie range for a sedentary person does seem like a decent amount of calories. That is one case where "starvation mode" was likely misrepresented.
It really applies to those people eating 1200, not eating back exercise calories and netting ike 300 calories. What the heck is their body supposed to use for fuel?0 -
Well said....First you hint at a claim that your metabolism increases on a fast based on a difficulty processing fat reserves for energy. This is true but only in the very short term (the number I've seen used most is up to 72 hours)blah blah blah
So yes, please explain how my metabolism slows down if I stop eating and am classified as obese?
Then you claim adaptive thermogenesis is unproven.Which is a theory related to supposed genetic set points related to weight gain in those who have lost weight.
blah blah blah
Then you go on to say that all you really wanted to do was clear up misconceptions about 'starvation mode' and the actual effects of extreme calorie restriction or fasting on obese individualsYou mistake clarification of facts with me advocating voluntary anorexia.
blah blah blah
To say that the metabolism is "stifled" (which is what you emphasised before staying simply slowed down) in the case of an extreme calorie deficit is simply wrong.
blah blah blah
Problem is you did a horrible job explaining things and primarily just referenced extreme cases that no one was talking about. I'd like to direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
At the end of the day a few important things need to be mentioned:
1) People, in general, are HORRIBLE at accurately measuring calorie intake (and are even worse at measuring calorie expenditure). Even scientific studies mess this up as it really is a PITA to do. In general, if you are having issues with weight loss or are not seeing the results you were expecting, that should be the first area that you look over critically. Chances are it's off, the question is by how much and if you can feasibly improve your precision. There are many cases of folks saying that they're on this extreme diet, when they are in fact underestimating their calorie intake (and/or overestimating expenditure if they're eating back exercise cals) or not taking into account the cheat day they had recently, etc. If you are actually on such an extreme diet (netting 250 calories a day and other such cases), your first and foremost goal should be getting help, the kind that you cannot find from an online forum.
2) In the short term, your metabolism does increase on a fast (http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html myth #4), but if restricting calories over an extended period of time, this will result in a slowdown of your metabolism. The direct hit to your metabolism is not going to exceed the increased deficit, but it could have a more substantial impact on your TDEE. What this means practically speaking, is that if you don't eat enough, you might notice your energy levels in the crapper, and have crummy workouts or move around less throughout the day, etc. This reduction in activity would increase the TDEE reduction, thereby further moderating the total loss from calorie restriction. This would be that light headedness you may feel when trying to run on an empty stomach or why lifting is so much easier when you aren't being as strict with your diet.
3) One major concern with extreme diets is the ratio of LBM loss to fat loss. It's pretty much a given that when losing weight you'll lose some muscle, but the idea is to minimize that loss as much as possible. Extreme diets make such goals very difficult if not impossible to achieve. This is talked about a lot in Lyle McDonald's book 'The Rapid Fatloss Handbook'.
4) All this being said, the magnitude of the deficit a very obese individual can safely sustain when dieting is much larger than that of someone only looking to lose a few pounds. See http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/setting-the-deficit-small-moderate-or-large.html
5) Measuring body weight is an easy endeavor, but what that gain or loss signifies can be a whole number of things. Someone on the atkins diet who eats 1000 calories of pasta will likely notice a large weight increase, on the order of magnitude of pounds. This isn't because they somehow gained 3 pounds eating that pasta, the thousand calories at most could only equate to less than a third of a pound gain, and that's if you're already at maintenance. Water weight, bodily functions, etc etc etc all play into the number on the scale and can muddle your actual results.
6) The final big thing is that extreme diets are unsustainable. You can lose a whole mess of weight very quickly on an apple and a cig a day (Christian Bale's 'diet' in The Machinist), but you won't look very good at the end of it (see The Machinist) and the likelihood of you falling off your diet and gaining all that weight back is very high. More moderate diets tend to be easier to stick to, and tend to result in a smoother transition to maintenance once you do reach your goals.
People on the one hand saying 'your body holds onto every calorie and you gain weight' are overstating adaptive thermogenesis, but that doesn't make claims to concentration camp survivors not being in starvation mode any more correct.
And "blah, blah, blah" was that post so perfectly characterized.0 -
People with eating disorders can experience a phenomenon where they initially lose weight when calories get increased, but this doesn't fit the average poster at MFP.
I've seen people tell a normal weight woman who doesn't exercise that she is in starvation mode at an average of 1500 calories a day (sometimes more, sometimes less.) I'd be shocked if a normal weight woman who doesn't exercise a lot and eats a range each week of 1300-1900 calories is truly starving.
Yes a 1300-1900 calorie range for a sedentary person does seem like a decent amount of calories. That is one case where "starvation mode" was likely misrepresented.
It really applies to those people eating 1200, not eating back exercise calories and netting ike 300 calories. What the heck is their body supposed to use for fuel?
The stored calories in their body fat. That's how weight loss happens.
I like Tom Venuto's definition of dangerously low intake being 50% or less of your TDEE.0 -
Does anyone else agree that starvation mode in an overweight to obese person doesn't exist? Studies have shown that the body can not starve until it reaches low body fat levels below 20 percent.
In regards to ones who are obese, morbibly obese and super morbilbly obese I do in fact believe that starvation mode is a lie. Not sure on those who are just overweight.
If you are obese and you eat below 1200 calories you will indeed lose weight and you are not starving your body because your body has so much stored fat to live on. As a doctor once told me if I only dranked water my body would survive a month at least on my fat alone. Would it be healthy no? But again a person who is morbilbly obese should not be obsessing if he eats 800 to 1200 calories at day. Take a multi-vitiamin and if need be get under doctor's care but he or she will not be starving themselves by any means.0 -
How many calories get burned off from people carping about how many calories we burn off in what we think are excessive caloric deficits? I bet a lot.
I don't know about anyone else's, but my fat reserves seem to lack large amounts of protein and vital nutrients I need from food.
The whole point of this site is to lose weight slowly and develop a lifestyle that allows us to keep it off. "Crash" dieting is not compatible with that for a lot of us. If you know you're one of the ones who is, great. If you want to experiment with it, great - just be mindful that it may be in your best interests to check with a medical professional first.
If you're going to experiment with excessive calorie deficits (eating below BMI, some magical/mystical number like 1200, or anything more than 1000 below total daily energy expenditure) it would be a really good idea to make sure you are eating a diet rich in proteins and all the vitamins and minerals your body needs for daily function, even if that means taking a supplement.
But we're all adults. If you want to crash diet like I've been trying and failing for the last 30+ years before finally discovering controlled weight loss, well, have at it. Some people like me need to learn the lesson the hard way. Or maybe it'll work for you - it seems to for some people. For others, not so much.
Just be mindful that you might be wise to check with a doctor or nutritionist or someone who knows what they are talking about if you're looking at a caloric deficit of over 1000 calories a day or a net intake of under 1000-1500 calories a day, and work up a diet plan that makes sure you are getting the nutrients your body needs for normal function. And have a plan to work slowly back to a normal diet when you're done.
Note I coached everything in "be mindful" and "consider". I ain't your daddy or momma and you're an adult. Have fun and I hope whatever you choose as a free individual works for you.0 -
Regardless of what you call it, if you stop taking in enough calories, you are going to start losing muscle as well as fat as your body starts living off it's own stores. So...you will end up weak, lethargic, and eventually "skinny fat", if you keep up the process long enough, as your body consumes not only fat, but muscle. Not a smart move if you are looking to become fit.
Another fact, you need to be in calorie deprivation to lose weight. Your body cannot be in maintenance mode OR anabolic phase whilst trying to lose weight, that is a medical fact... You try talk to your doctor saying you want to lose a lot of weight but bulk up or eat maintenance calories... He will laugh at you, that is what will happen...
At best you can minimise the effect of muscle catabolism.... If your eating less calories you wont be in an anabolic state will you...
Go onto any body building forum and state your so called facts about muscle growth and losing fat at same time whilst eating less calories than needed in order to lose (As again, you need be in a deficit to lose...) and see the responses you will get...
no one is saying to eat at maintenance to lose weight. Just eat at a more reasonable amount than what many people do.
So many people here are netting below 1200...some net negative numbers.
On bodybuidling.com no one is going to agree that this is a good idea.
Most people use calorie calculators based on harris benedict or katch-mcurdle that give you a sustainable and healthy deficit based on your BMR and TDEE.
I am eating at a 500 calorie deficit which puts me at 2000 calories a day. A far cry from the 1200 or less that people are netting.
I agree with everything you say, however.. I can't.... I just can't... I get too scared about gaining, that I just don't... however that is for mostly fatty foods or high caloric foods....
I have had a total of 475calories today including breakfast... however I don't feel starved if that makes sense? I will likely have a few beers though... kind of my point for being low at moment... So I can get drunk tonight... Healthy? I don't know but I really doubt it, however I do know I will still lose and see a loss tomorrow morning even though will be drunk.... Unless of course you know.. I pig out on something else...
I up my intake depending on days if training, if not, if I am tired, I up in certain areas in general though, I like a nice high protein diet, few carbs and the rest fat... more carbs on days I train or am racing though... I like this state as I am losing constantly (daily) however I know if a race is coming up, 2-4 days before I can easily carbo load, picking up perhaps 3-4 pounds however mostly is water due to 1g carb needs 3g of water to store... I like it... I don't feel hungry (mostly, if I do I drink a protein shake or 3 crackers + cheese), have energy for workouts and like the comments I am getting... Sure it is low, however... I am.. let's just say a bit on the tiny side of things when it comes to height :P I wouldn't say anyone should do this as I can't manage their nutrients at all... Nor would they be very short like I am.. I mean, my 11yr old sister is taller than me and I am 24 to give you an idea....
I got a nice marathon coming up and want my weight to be between 52-54kg... still roughly 10-12kg over that at moment...0 -
Saves all that boring exercise crap perhaps.So if it was unrealistic and you gained the weight back, then lost it all on 2500 what was the point of doing it at 1000?
Though I think he found out the above after the event.
Regaining weight after losing is near universal, it isn't exclusive to high deficits. See Mr AB the one year plus fasting Scotsman, no food for a year, kept weight off for another 5.0 -
Err, the fat they're trying to lose. I presume you believe a calorie is a calorie, so the hundreds of thousands of calories hanging off overweight and obese people is a very suitable source of fuel.It really applies to those people eating 1200, not eating back exercise calories and netting ike 300 calories. What the heck is their body supposed to use for fuel?
On the other hand if you believe the exercise calories expense is causing some issue one has to ask why they are exercising that much.0 -
I've been largely a lurker on MFP because I enjoy the banter, reading posts, and the tools are helping me lose weight.
This post (poster) however, reminds me just how nasty some people are and how some need to look down on others.
It makes me (and I'm assuming others) want to leave. It's a perfect example of how to just be an intimidator, and yes,
it is condescending. It's not funny, it's not comical, and it's not supportive. It's just kind of mean.
(Getting off my soapbox)
.. ps might not be clear but directed to the "Gentleman" with the "Buttercup" snarky reply.0 -
So yes, please explain how my metabolism slows down if I stop eating and am classified as obese?
It's called adaptive thermogenesis.
Which is a theory related to supposed genetic set points related to weight gain in those who have lost weight.
I must have missed the pictures of the folks in Auschwitz who held onto all their fat and kept saying the scale just wouldn't budge.
Again, in the extremely obese your bodily functions have set energy costs that cannot be reduced beyond a certain point, period. Starvation mode does not happen unless you have zero excess body fat to consume for energy. Adaptive thermogenesis is a theory that loves to get trumped up by folks who hit weight loss plataeus or just don't have the persistince to keep at it.
The bolded bit above, this ^!!
I'm with you on this one, it's a wonder there are any starving people in the world really, all these third world countries whereby they have no food. BandAid, LiveAid, none of that was necessary really was it, after all, those that are starving in the third world countries, all they really needed to do was restrict their calories, they would have put on their weight and been absolutely fine!
NOW does all those that profess about starvation mode see? Or not?
You're kind of scary.
Who, why?0 -
Wonderful progress.Who cares if it does or does not exist.
I don't care what you call it but I was NOT losing weight on 1200 calories a day. I tried for over a year and I was not over estimating my food etc. I've been in the weight loss game since I was 12 and have always struggled, including having an ED and not losing then either.
I weigh and measure out all of my food.
As soon as I upped my calories to 1800 I lost 6 lbs. I plateaued again and upped to 2000 and I have started losing again.
I am not alone in this. There are thousands of people on this board who experience the same thing, not losing on 1200 but up the calories and start losing again. How do you explain this?
You are a testament to the truth some go to great lengths to deny. And you know what?
Let them make themselves miserable failures on some crash diet. People wise to the realities of healthy, lasting fat loss know better.
Again, congratulations on your success :flowerforyou:
who said they fail?
I didn't, hundreds of others have not, all of whom were on 1200 calories per day, did not plateau, did not go into any starvation mode.0 -
I've always understood it like this: when starving yourself, you will lose fat. But an extremly low diet is not a sustainable one, and when you come off it and begin eating normally again, your body will go cray-cray and try to replace the stored fat it has lost to take your body back to it's set point, and you will be a more ravanous beast due to hunger and restriction. Also, what about our nutrients? It's better to get nutrients out of food than from a pill. Whether you are big or small, it's still a shock to the body, especially if it was a drastic rather than gradual change. It's just better AND more efficient to lose weight by eating a good amount of healthy food (so that you have a reasonably calorie deficient), and still having the energy to exercise.
That's just how I understand it!
When you reach your goal, you then need to maintain that weight. Finding your maintenance level of calories per day is what can be tricky. Many people go back to eating how they used to before they lost their weight, this is a massive mistake, because eating that way was what caused them to put the weight on in the first place.
Maintenance level is eating the same amount of calories as you burn daily. Finding that maintenance level is another matter and can take quite a long time to get right.
Maintenance level does not mean you will put all your weight back on. Eating above maintenance level will mean your weight will start to increase.0 -
Their eating disorders were not advanced enough yet for the low BMI thing, and the purpose of the diets were not to lose weight. But, by eating the number of calories they needed to, their metabolisms recovered, and they returned to a healthy weight.Okay, someone in starvation mode will continue to lose weight. But it will be a very slow process and it will probably cause rapid weight gain once they end calorie-restriction. Why are those desirable outcomes, people who think starvation mode is silly?
FWIW, I do actually know two people who were overweight *because* they were not eating enough. They had eating disorders, and when they were put by their dietitians on a diet they felt was way too much food, the pounds dropped off.
They were overweight BECAUSE they were not eating enough?? This defies all logic and physics.
Those eating disorders and the way the doctors dealt with it would have been to put them on more calories than they needed in order that their weight went ON, not came OFF. No doctor in his/her right mind would ever put somebody with a genuine ED on a weightloss diet - ever!
That healthy weight being more than they were. Therefore they were put on more calories than they burned daily in order to put more weight on. Exactly.0 -
Wonderful progress.Who cares if it does or does not exist.
I don't care what you call it but I was NOT losing weight on 1200 calories a day. I tried for over a year and I was not over estimating my food etc. I've been in the weight loss game since I was 12 and have always struggled, including having an ED and not losing then either.
I weigh and measure out all of my food.
As soon as I upped my calories to 1800 I lost 6 lbs. I plateaued again and upped to 2000 and I have started losing again.
I am not alone in this. There are thousands of people on this board who experience the same thing, not losing on 1200 but up the calories and start losing again. How do you explain this?
You are a testament to the truth some go to great lengths to deny. And you know what?
Let them make themselves miserable failures on some crash diet. People wise to the realities of healthy, lasting fat loss know better.
Again, congratulations on your success :flowerforyou:
who said they fail?
I didn't, hundreds of others have not, all of whom were on 1200 calories per day, did not plateau, did not go into any starvation mode.
MFP has me at 1200 calories per day.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions