Is anyone else sick of hearing about "starvation mode"?

I know there is such a thing as starvation mode but that is not the answer most of the time. If you under eat for a couple days that does not put you in starvation mode. I think more often than not people are not being honest with themselves about what they eat. Cheating at your calories only cheats one person yourself be honest with yourself and work at it and you will loose weight (there are exceptions of course) If you are counting everything and working out you will eventually get where you want to be. None of us gained this weight in a month and none of of loose it in a month. Follow what this site advises and you can do it, it is sometimes really frustrating I started at 290 when I lost 2 lbs I was like big deal but now I am 61 down because I am going to be healthier, period. Thanks for letting blow off some steam, I think the key to loosing is personal accountabiliy no one can loose the weight for you.

yes i am

especially considering that usually while you're sleeping your body goes into "starvation mode"

I agree about accountability and the fact that people cheat calories, but starvation mode IS legit. It's not like everyone with a ruined metabolism from crash dieting is just fooling themselves and eating more than they realize. It's not fabricated.

But yeah, I get your annoyance.

Yup, it's a real thing.

The truth is that there is a "window" of optimum calorie intake. You go above it, your weight stalls. You drop below it, starvation mode stalls it. And the especially annoying part is that this "window" shifts as you lose weight. It's tricky to know when to bob and weave.

So, yeah, you're either eating too much or too little. Most of us would be reluctant to admit it's too much, but we're practically labeled ED around here if it's too little (but still above 1200/1500).

I quess it depends how you define it. Does weight loss stall if you eat too few calories, no.

Every time I read the phrase (only on this site) I am reminded of my mom.  She did the yo-yo diet thing for longer than my memory goes back, bouncing between chubby and obese all her adult life.  Right up until the cancer hit, that is.  I wish she could have found herself in starvation mode, then.  Within 6 months of her diagnosis she was under 100 pounds.

I think that besides a bit of dishonesty with the caloric intake, there is often also a lessening in activity level that is not being adressed. 

You have to use it to lose it!   

Original Post by neanderthin:

I quess it depends how you define it. Does weight loss stall if you eat too few calories, no.

uh, yes.

sorry.

Not so much, I'm much more sick of hearing about needless and excessive calorie restriction.

There's a sweet spot on calories that's different for each person and their situation but you can bet that it's not under 1200F/1500M + 300teens +%exercise.

Original Post by smwhipple:

Not so much, I'm much more sick of hearing about needless and excessive calorie restriction.

There's a sweet spot on calories that's different for each person and their situation but you can bet that it's not under 1200F/1500M + 300teens +%exercise.

 Totally agree!

As for being sick of Hearing about "starvation mode" the answer is a resounding NO! 

I only wish I had heard it about 25 years ago before I kept trying to eat 1200 calories with jogging, swimming and aerobics most days.  I thought I was a weakling when I was just so fatigued and achey that I just had to stop.

I wish my mother had heard of it before I tried starving myself in high school.  (and inevitably binging). 

I wish my doctor had heard of it before he suggested a 1200 cal diet for me when I was in 5th grade. 

So no, I'm not tired of hearing it.

Me! I'm sick of it!

I think people waaaay overuse it as an excuse to eat more. For example, when people hit diet plateaus (I'm on one right now) everyone starts pointing fingers at "ooooh you're in starvation mode! You're not eating enough! Eat more calories!"  Erm... hello? Way to get me off the wagon for good with advice like that! I don't think the solution is to start eating MORE, but to maybe shift my diet around a bit, eat new foods etc, count the calories, keep the exercise up, and just wait.

I'm also sick of hearing people (not here really- but on other forums for example) using it as a firm excuse why they should NOT start a weight loss diet of any kind! I even know people who think if they don't eat every two hours that their bodies will go into this "starvation mode." I've read people's posts where they claimed that calorie reduction of any kind actually makes you fatter because it causes "starvation mode" which causes stress, which causes cortisol production, which in turn make you fatter. I've read people's arguments that you always end up bigger after any diet, due to starvation mode. GAH!

Yes, we're designed to reserve body mass in times of severe famine, but we're also designed to lose unnecessary mass when we gradually reduce our calories and increase our calorie expenditure. Believe it or not, being significantly overweight is not an optimal condition in nature. There is also no evidence that calorie restriction has any longterm effect on metabolism, nevertheless, some people still insist on claiming that dieting will cause your body to go into a serious kind of "starvation mode" and that you can permanently screw up your metabolism so that you can't keep the weight off. Weight Watchers disagrees and so does the US Department of Health.

Bottom line, I'm sick of hearing all the reasons why I should fail. Give Mother Nature a little credit. You have fat for a reason and, assuming you're of normal health and have no endocrine disorders, its levels naturally go up and down depending on what you do and what you eat. Period.

Original Post by rufus_k:

Original Post by smwhipple:

Not so much, I'm much more sick of hearing about needless and excessive calorie restriction.

There's a sweet spot on calories that's different for each person and their situation but you can bet that it's not under 1200F/1500M + 300teens +%exercise.

Totally agree!

As for being sick of Hearing about "starvation mode" the answer is a resounding NO!

I only wish I had heard it about 25 years ago before I kept trying to eat 1200 calories with jogging, swimming and aerobics most days. I thought I was a weakling when I was just so fatigued and achey that I just had to stop.

I wish my mother had heard of it before I tried starving myself in high school. (and inevitably binging).

I wish my doctor had heard of it before he suggested a 1200 cal diet for me when I was in 5th grade.

So no, I'm not tired of hearing it.

 

I am not tired of hearing about it either.  Especially after  gained weight when I had to take meds.  I remember sitting with my mom at lunch - she eats the whole plate and I eat less than half.  I feel guilty and say "I know I am fat mom but i can not imagine how I can possibly eat less."  I was beside myself and so disgusted. I felt guilty eating anything at all.

But after finding this site I was able to lose 34 lbs now and eat more than I thought possible.  No I am not tired of hearing about it.

Some of these women are not honest.  Well that is their business and deep down they know the truth.  But there are more out there who have no clue and really need some solid advice. 

Yes!!!!!

Original Post by jenniferger:

Yes, we're designed to reserve body mass in times of severe famine, but we're also designed to lose unnecessary mass when we gradually reduce our calories and increase our calorie expenditure. Believe it or not, being significantly overweight is not an optimal condition in nature.

Being significantly overweight is not a condition that our bodies ever got to consider until the last hundred or so years so, no, we are not designed to lose unnecessary mass without an active effort.  Yes, we will lose the weight if we gradually reduce our caloric intake and increase calorie expenditure - but doing that isn't what concerns people.  The term "starvation mode" mostly gets thrown around when people post to ask why they're not losing on their 900 calorie/day diet.

Personally, I'm sick of people jumping into threads to tell people they're fat (as has happened a few times over the last couple of weeks).  It's *incredibly* rude and insensitive - not to mention ignorant since these people seem to assume that everyone is petite (i.e. short with slight build and not much muscle) just like them.  Since we're ranting.

People need to understand starvation mode, it is not something that happens just cause you ate 3 days of 600 calories per day. It happens when you are constantly eating like that. If you eat  lets say 3 days of 600 and 4th day you eat 1600 and this is something you do a lot of as long as you are getting some high calorie days in there also you are not going to go into starvation mode. You may have a point in your diet where you will have "stalling" for a couple weeks but not starvation mode or plateau. Now mind you I am not saying it is ok to eat below 1200 I am just saying even if you do a couple times a week its not going to put you in a starvation mode. There is a diet called rotation diet that you eat 600/900/1200 in a period over 3 weeks and I met someone who has done this and lost 135 pounds in over a year has kept the weight off for over 2 years now.Starvation modes are for the people that eat under 1000 calories everyday day in day out.

edit: removed

Kissy, the article below gives a pretty good explanation of why the diet you're suggesting is a really bad idea.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/core_march_8. htm

While I am tired of reading the phrase, "You are in starvation mode," as a definitive reason for every plateau, I'm not tired of hearing about it in general.  People need to know that eating too little can slow or stall their weight loss progress.

Our bodies did not evolve with refrigeration, supermarkets, mass food production, and fast food joints.  Those who lived in temperate climates, for example, had to expend a lot of energy during the warmer months to hunt and gather enough food to last through the winter, and when the food started to run low in the late winter, people had to be able to survive on less until they could go out and find more food.  Those who were able to conserve energy and stretch out their body fat stores were more likely to survive until spring.  When we feed our bodies less, our bodies respond as if we were still living in caves waiting for the winter to end.  They conserve as much energy as possible, so that we can survive until more food is available.

How much energy we burn is not independent of how much energy we take in.  The more we restrict calories, the more our bodies try to conserve them.  This certainly doesn't make losing weight impossible, but it does make it challenging for some of us.

Original Post by lovegrowsontrees:

Original Post by neanderthin:

I quess it depends how you define it. Does weight loss stall if you eat too few calories, no.

uh, yes.

sorry.

People use starvation mode as an excuse soooooooo much. If a person's in a deficit they'll lose weight, and if there not, they won't, pretty simple concept.

If someone has been eating chronically low in calories and starts to lie to themselves about how much they eat and stalls, who's fault is that.

Starvation mode is simply the body shedding muscle to find homostasis all because the person is a **** hunter.

Now if a person gains weight on 1200 calories, then it's time to start lifting weights and eating some food. And if you work at it hard enough the body will reward that **** hunter with some vitality and a body capable of maintaining a decent metabolism.........of course we wouldn't need to be on a diet anymore, and then we wouldn't need to complain that starvation mode has stalled us in our weight loss............what to do, what to do.

Original Post by neanderthin:

Original Post by lovegrowsontrees:

Original Post by neanderthin:

I quess it depends how you define it. Does weight loss stall if you eat too few calories, no.

uh, yes.

sorry.

People use starvation mode as an excuse soooooooo much. If a person's in a deficit they'll lose weight, and if there not, they won't, pretty simple concept.

If someone has been eating chronically low in calories and starts to lie to themselves about how much they eat and stalls, who's fault is that.

Starvation mode is simply the body shedding muscle to find homostasis all because the person is a **** hunter.

Now if a person gains weight on 1200 calories, then it's time to start lifting weights and eating some food. And if you work at it hard enough the body will reward that **** hunter with some vitality and a body capable of maintaining a decent metabolism.........of course we wouldn't need to be on a diet anymore, and then we wouldn't need to complain that starvation mode has stalled us in our weight loss............what to do, what to do.

If you're in a deficit you lose weight. However, a deficit does not happen when you deprive your body for long periods of time, because it gets smart and adjusts how much it burns. Hence, weight loss stalls if you eat too few calories. starvation mode!!!!11

Original Post by susiecue:

Kissy, the article below gives a pretty good explanation of why the diet you're suggesting is a really bad idea.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/core_march_8. htm

Okay, but the problem with this link is that it's anecdotal. There's a reason why doctors still use VLCDs when they need to reduce a patient's weight dramatically and quickly, and  I'm not suggesting that people undertake any such thing, so no flames okay? But, studies out there do show that going very low calorie is a viable option for some.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v21/n11/abs /0800507a.html ; There are other studies as well if you care to look for them. Most of them seem to show rapid weight loss at first, then more modest - but still steady- weight loss for the rest of the time, accounting for 60 to 70% fat, the rest being water and muscle tissue. So again, the whole "OMG you'll lose ONLY muscle and then all your vital organs and everything and NO fat at all!" is completely bogus. Again, medical doctors put patients on VLCDS for a reason, and that's to reduce lots and lots of body FAT. 

Weight Watchers has this take on the whole starvation mode thing. http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_ art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

I don't doubt that many factors are at play... from behavioral issues, emotions, to feeling tired, to suffering from nutrient deficiencies -I mean, you really have to eat a certain level of calories in order to get a fully balanced diet- no question there- to natural differences in metabolism. The site may suggest you eat 1700 cals and you- because you naturally have a slower metabolism, may only really need 1600 and find your weightloss stalled, not know why and think you're in "starvation mode." Lots of things can go wrong. But I do not believe all these anecdotal doom posts and blogs and sites that just seem to regurgitate the same old stuff without offering any hardcore proof.

I asked Mary about starvation mode several months back and this was her response...

“Starvation mode” has more to do with the amount of weight you lose than the number of calories you eat and burn.  After losing 10% - 25% of your body weight, your metabolic rate slows down to protect you from starvation.  This metabolic compensation is called “starvation mode”.  

But the reason why you should not drop your calorie intake too low is to give yourself room to get the nutrients you need, as well as to prevent your muscle mass from being burned for energy.  And so, with that in mind, it is better to eat 1500 calories and burn 400 calories in activity.

Her reply really contradicts what a lot of people would have you believe about starvation mode. 

Her last sentence there was in reply to part of my question. Which was basically... What's the difference between eating 1500 calories and day and burning 400, versus not exercising and eating only 1100