The Starvation Myth

The Starvation Myth
The idea that "not eating enough" causes the body to stop losing weight because it goes into "starvation mode" is a popular myth among dieters.
Article By: The Weight Watchers Research Department

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.
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).

Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilized, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.

Weight Watchers Approach
The <PointsPlus system is designed to provide a caloric intake that supports a healthy rate of weight loss, produces a minimal reduction in metabolism and avoids inducing too-high levels of dietary restraint.

I think people get the term "starvation mode" confused with actual "starvation". These forums are FULL of people eating at or less than 1200 calories and complaining about not losing weight. How many times do you read a post that says: "Help I cant lose weight and I'm only eating 1200 calories a day and working out like crazy." There is obviously something wrong with doing this for the long term.


.

Sure, some people can eat 1200 forever.

Well, my point in listing that one is that there is a logical leap in there. Eating 1200 now to lose some weight doesn't imply eating 1200 forever.

The way I see it I eat when I'm hungry and if MFP tells me that I'm not eating enough I ignore it because my body will tell me if I'm starving. Typically when I work out I feel hungrier so sometimes I eat back those extra calories only because my body was clearly telling me that I need them. And I still lose the weight so listen to your body, it knows best.

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.

You may be coming off as fanatical because you are focusing on personal experience.

If all of you really want to know the answer of whether restricting calories on a daily basis or just every once in a while works...read this Scholarly reviewed study. http://bit.ly/CalorieRestriction

Awesome read!

"As for fat mass, similar decreases were noted whenintermittent CR was compared to daily CR. After 8 to 12weeks of treatment, 11–16% reductions in fat masswere reported for intermittent restriction (21–23), while10–20% decreases were demonstrated for daily restriction(8–12). These two diets differed, however, in their effectson lean mass. For instance, a lower proportion of lean masswas lost in response to intermittent CR (90% weight lost asfat, 10% weight loss as fat free mass) (21–23) when com-pared to daily CR (75% weight lost as fat, 25% weight lossas fat free mass) (4,7–16). Therefore, intermittent CR maybe a more effective diet for the retention of lean mass whencompared to daily CR."

This points more towards a cyclical type dieting routine where you have high days, lifting/cardio etc..., and low days.
So from a LBM standpoint having a few refeed days a week/month could benefit as opposed to a straight cut.

That study actually shows my point better than yours. The seven "Intermittent Calorie Restriction" trials used restriction of these amounts, alternated with 'eat at will' days: 100%, 85%, 100%, 80%, 75%, 75%, 75%

So if you eat at TDEE minus 75-100% alternated with days of eating at will, you lose less lean body mass than by smaller daily deficits.

PS: That is not all that just made up forum stuff you listed. Many experienced nutritionists and respected authorities like Lyle McDonald and Krieger say the similar things. It is a theory with some scientific basis just as your theory is. People aren't making this stuff up out of thin air to post on a forum. There is not one objective truth in this discussion. Different people will follow different things based on their objective and beliefs just as you do.

Where does McDonald say it? I recently read his Rapid Fat Loss Handbook and I would say he takes my stance. He's probably even less conservative. He has people on his plan of 400-800 calories for as long as they feel ok with it.

I browsed his site a little and I do see some mention in some contexts but for the most part he seems to recommend that if your weight loss is slower than expected, you should reduce calories in or increase activity. That's really all I'm saying. He does say some people can't seem to lose at some levels, so maybe that's where a lot of MFPers are.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adjusting-the-diet.html

"If your predicted fat loss is 1-1.5 lbs/week (and you’re not messing up your calories somehow, through mis-measurement or what have you) and you’re not achieving that, you need to reduce calories further (or increase activity to burn the extra).

Clearly, if you’re hitting your goal numbers right on the spot, don’t change anything.

Of course, there are times when the actual weekly weight loss ends up being larger than expected. Some of this can be water or what have you but not always. And that leads me to an explanation of the middle column.

As I discussed in Weight Training for Fat Loss, one of the primary metrics that should be used while dieting (for non-athletes) is the maintenance of poundages in the gym. Now, it’s not always possible to maintain 100% of strength (and this tends to be a bigger issue as folks get to lower and lower body fat levels) but if major dropoffs are being seen and training is correct, that usually indicates that muscle is being lost. In that situation, the deficit must be reduced, either food intake should be increased or some of the extra activity (usually excessive cardio) should be reduced.

Of course, the same would go for athletes who are trying to reduce body fat levels, if some useful metric of their performance (e.g. run time, cycling power output, whatever) is worsening, then the deficit is too aggressive and calories should be increased (with any ‘junk’ or extra activity being reduced if necessary).

I’d note that, strictly speaking, I could have included the performance loss column for any of the weekly fat losses. Some people even doing everything ‘right’ simply can’t achieve optimal fat loss results without performance loss. They will need to use less agressive deficits (again either reducing food intake or increasing activity) to avoid major performance falloffs."

Come on people the word starvation mode is taken way out of context around here... No one is comparing anything to starving kids in Africa.... The way most use this term is that if you run to high of a caloric deficit your bodies metabolism slows to a crawl and your weightloss stalls... So in essence your body tries to protect itself aka starvation mode.... Then there is the other side "Eating more to lose weight" this comes in to play when you consume those calories burned during exercise. You have to fuel your body for the workouts you ask of it to do... It is as simple as that...

Read the article, though: your metabolism *slows down*, doesn't stop. You will incrementally lose weight slower, but you will still be losing weight at a rapid pace. You don't stop losing weight from fat until you are under 10% bf. and hardly anybody on this forum applies to that.

Note: I'm not saying that eating more than 1200 calories is BAD for you or will make it hard to lose weight (on a case-by-case basis, of course), I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with 1000-1200 calories a day for most people. It's just hard and takes some adjusting. You won't stop losing weight if you eat 1200 cals. You won't gain weight if you eat 1200 cals. And it is not an automatic "well you will lose muscle, then", either.

Hate to burst your bubble but after 37 months of being in a caloric deficit and losing 310 lbs, thru diet and exercise and trial and error coming from not being able to stand and support my own weight to where I am today I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my body did shut down, did stop losing weight and did actually start retaining calories I was putting in causing me to completely stall out because of those high calorie deficits.... After I figured it out everything changed... Now I eat 3200-3400 calories a day presently to lose 1/2 lb. a week.... I had a BMI of 74+ and after 310 lbs. lost I still have a BMI of 33% (still obese by their standards)

Not by mine:



So I respectfully have to disagree..........

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.

In fact, WW lets you roll over the extra points through the week, not just for the day. I appreciate the extra calories, because I exercise hard and if I had to stay at 1200, I would feel as though I'm starving. For example, today I burned about 1300 calories exercising, if I eat only 1200, I'm still in the hole -100. And it doesn't just come down to burning fat to make up the difference.

Lol delusional.

Even the article says both ways help you lose but one way is better.

Enjoy your low cals folks!
My breakfast alone was more than you'll eat in a day and the weight comes off.
*shrugs*