The Starvation Myth

What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).

That's because other calorie counting plans add the amount of exercise you SAY you'll do into your calorie goal. MFP only adds it to your calorie goal AFTER you do it.

Exercise calories is, as far as I can tell, pretty much unique to this site. Weight Watchers uses points, which is similar, but not as precise as counting calories and macros.

Absolutely correct Lorrina. Some assume them and have you eat a level amount based on what you input. some set a daily allowance without factoring in exercise and you eat more on workout days. MFP is the 2nd type. It's just not that big a point of contention. There are PTs who think you are absolutely doing it wrong it you eat 'em before you earn 'em. Makes sense to me. It's just not as complicated as some make it seem. Set you activity level and weight loss amount. That determines your deficit. Eat back exercise calories to keep a consistent deficit.

What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).

This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:

That's because other programs either a) are giving you a calorie count based on the generic women-should-eat-1200-calories-to-lose-weight or b) they're accounting for your exercise in the calories you're given (e.g. TDEE -20%), so in actuality you ARE eating back exercise calories but it's already figured in to a set daily amount whereas MFP doesn't believe you're going to exercise x number of days a week at x intensity until you actually do.

*Edit: I see someone already pointed this out.

Must be the working out was the common denominator and not the under eating. :huh:

Why is it people understand so clearly that you need a calorie surplus to build up a body yet they believe you can fail to shrink a body at a deficit?

There is no 'retaining calories' and no 'metabolism shutdown' just like you can't build muscles out of thin air.

Yes weight watchers does give you activity calories. (whatever they call them). I too would like to know who the
'researchers' were. Magazine are often staffed with people like us who have personal experiences and opinions. but perhaps not a lot of scientific knowledge. Makes for good discussion but use your own judgement. If you stop losing, or if you're hungry, too tired whatever. Take a look at what you're doing and make some changes.

I let my body guide me on this one, I stick to 1200cals... however, there are certain times where I feel a little weak and under nourished and then I boost it up to 1500 for a few days. It doesnt happen very often, but it works for me. Now Im not saying that would work for everyone, but its what works for me.

I had a lengthy conversation with my doc about it, and he thinks its just fine. In fact my blood pressure is awesome and I usually have oodles of energy.

Starvation mode = adaptive thermogenesis = metabolic slowdown
Starvation mode =/= Starvation (or any argument involving anorexics or africans)

There, I just cleared it up for you. Now we can all agree.

The question becomes beyond the slowdown you'd expect to see from losing weight ie having lower total mass, how much more will adaptive thermogenesis lower your metabolism from under eating?

The article sort of addresses that. It also presents the theory that 'not losing at steep deficits' can be due to binge-ing, presumably without recording.

Lyle McDonald's "Rapid Fat Loss" pdf says about the same thing as it does, too, I think. I mean, that you may slow down expected losses some but you never stop them.

"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.
It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.

While there is no biologic evidence to support the "starvation mode" myth, there may be behavioral reasons why weight loss stops when calories are severely reduced. Over-restriction of calorie intake, known as high dietary restraint is linked to periods of overeating, hindering successful weight loss.3 (For more information on dietary restraint, read the Science Center article, The Skill of Flexible Restraint)."

If you must insist on eating at such highly restricted calories please start resistance weight training over cardio.


Study for the reason I say this and article that sites the study.
http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.abstract

http://fitnessblackbook.com/dieting_for_fat_loss/maintain-muscle-mass-on-800-calories-per-day/

Results for the Dieters Who Did Cardio Only

The cardio only group lost most overall weight than the resistance only group, but unfortunately lost a significant amount of lean body mass. They also experienced a decrease in resting metabolic rate. So, obviously if someone is dieting hard they need to more than just cardio to maintain their lean muscle mass.

Results for the Dieters Who Did Resistance Training

This group didn’t lose any muscle mass whatsoever. In fact they lost more body fat than the cardio only group. Also, you have probably heard that “the metabolism slows down if calories are kept too low”. Well…this group actually had a higher resting metabolic rate than when they started. So resistance training is key when you are dieting.

Note that this study disproves all the people saying you do not lose muscle mass until low body fat %. You can lose muscle at anytime if your body feels it is not needed and you are eating at a deficit.

I personally think those who keep to 1200 calories and less, tend to be more likely to gain the weight back at some point, as their focus is on losing weight only, and not on a sustainable lifestyle change. I noted a few here who claim it worked for them before...well hey, if it worked so well, then why are you here needing to lose weight again ? It seems pointless to keep calories that low unless it is medically advised, as it can make shifting into maintenance and not gaining that much harder. I maintain my weight, with an hour of exercise 6x per week, on 2200-2600 calories a day, and I am not young, and am hypothyroid as well as having had anorexia when much younger(which can supposedly bork up metabolism), so yeah. Go figure that one out But that is my opinion from personal observation.

As to exercise calories just being an excuse to eat more...and? Your point? What is intrinsically wrong with a human taking enjoyment in eating more, if it is relatively healthy food? Fact of the matter is, the majority of humans enjoy eating and enjoy food, so I see nothing negative in people eating back their exercise calories unless it is genuinely causing them to gain weight having tried it for at least 3-4 weeks.

/grabs popcorn

this should be interesting

I am also excited. Hopefully, your popcorn has TONS of butter so you get those exercise cals back

Now I'm going to sit back and watch the show...lol.

The show that I would want to watch would be exercise physiologists and nutritionists and other people who have gone to school for a long time argue about things like this.

This is where MFP could be so much better. Get some of those people and have EXPERTS giving advice on this kind of stuff. I am in the exercise science industry but not a nutritionist nor a personal trainer (will have that soon tho)...and these threads infuriate me at times. Yes. It is important to gain advice and support from others. But when it comes to things that may in the end harm your body, if you are going to post things about how there is no such thing as "starvation mode" or eating too little then don't write it on MFP...join a pro-ana website.

I disagree.

The beautiful thing about MFP is we are all just in it to lose weight. It is very, very simple. There is plenty of information out there for weight-loss, plenty of research about everything you can dream of-- but there is no definitive clear answer here. You will always have people that chose to follow what they believe is working for them. Always. No matter how terrible it might be for them. The only thing MFP is maintained to do, is to create an environment to support and talk to one another about our choices. It doesn't make them right, but for those that chose to eat below their caloric intake for the day--not your problem, and if you disagree with their choices, unfriend them. Simple. Let them do their own research, that's not what the website is about.

As far as MFP goes, it is made to do exactly what it's doing. It isn't a research site, it simply is a collection of people working towards the same goal. We are here to encourage each other, not give solid data on how to lose weight. We are all different. What worked for me, may not work for someone else. That's the beauty of the website. The diversity. I am a group fitness instructor, I have more certifications than awards, however- People have a right to post whatever they want to post. I could post a thread about how eating pineapple for the rest of your life is going to let you live until you are 200 years old. If you are ignorant enough to believe it, that's your own problem. From a personal stand-point, directing people to a pro-ana website is not only ridiculous and out of line, but it's dangerous.

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

For me doing the same workout I lose weight the same eating at 1200 or 1400.

Not true that MFP is the only "program" that promotes eating your workout calories. Weight watchers gives you "activity points" to use during the week for certain amount of exercise.

This!! Weight Watchers didn't do this many moons ago when I first tried it. And I was starving all the time and working out like a maniac. Now things have changed.

Well OP taking a look at your diary your eating is pretty horrible (no offense I only looked at a few days and my past few days are horrifying so perhaps it's just a recent thing) but what I saw is loaded with fat and you go over on saturated fat quite often, which is the worst kind of fat for you... So I suppose if you're eating less then 1200 calories of that kind of food you'll be malnourished but you won't be starving...

But if you have someone whose actually consuming less then 1200 calorie a day and burning 600 at the gym...well then that person is doing some pretty serious damage. If you're eating 1350 and burning off 300 at the gym you'll probably be okay. But if you ever go into negative or extremely low net you're def screwing up your body really bad. I'm not saying eat back every exercise calorie but you should at least keep your net to about 800 (and that's pretty damn low) which isn't at all unreasonable because if you went to the gym and burned 400 you would only need to eat 1200 calories to have an 800 net...but honestly if you go to the gym you'll probably be hungrier and eat more. I'm not saying eat 800 extra calories every time you have a big work out but you shouldn't have these insanely low nets. It's important to at least drink a protein shake if you want to actually gain muscle.

Believe me skinny fat isn't all that attractive and that;s what you'll get without enough protein/nutrition in your diet.