LOCKED TOPIC

Skeptical about starvation mode.

I know somebody who lost about 30 lbs. in 6 months by basically starving herself every other day. Like Sunday she'd have 300 calories, Monday 800 calories, Tuesday 200, Wednesday 1000, Thursday 200, etc... Well, after losing at that weight she basically ate "healthy" aka salads and salmon and said she guessed she had 1000-1200 calories per day to maintain, and she didn't gain anything back. So, I don't get why she didn't. What is all this about starvation mode and gaining it all back and stuff?

she actually starved herself, so her body ate whatever it could to lose weight, including her muscle and fat.

Starvation mode is where your body THINKS it wont get food ans slows down the metabolism to save itself incase of hard times. Slow metabolism=easier weight gain. Its a killer to us trying to lose weight because it halts our efforts. If it helps, think of it like "o crap im not going to get any food for a long time let me save everything I get!"

so thats starvation mode in a nutshell

Starvation mode can also be a state of mind.  If I am used to consuming 3000 to 4000 calories per day, 2000 calories is going to seem like a starvation diet.  In my opinion, you should start with an estimate of the proper energy balance.  You should plan on consuming something close to the number of calories that you are going to expend.  That estimate is based on your age, height, (ideal) weight and level of activity.  If you need to shed some pounds in order to get down to your ideal weight, you are going to have to deprive yourself of some of the calories in your baseline estimate or increase your level of activity, which is going to make you feel like you are depriving yourself, or you can do a little of both.

You don't want to over do the deprivation.  But you can safely undercut your calorie budget by 10 to 20%.  If you add exercise, you will increase the probability that the weight loss is do to reduction of excess fat.

the thing about going into starvation mode is that even though weight loss may occur (at some point the weight loss "stall" that dieters experience gives way because you actually are starving your body and it's getting fuel from residual fat & metabolizing muscle), it's not good for your body. it's a very unhealthy way to lose weight because it's taxing your body's defense mechanisms. by losing weight that way dieters fail to develop healthy eating habits & lifestyle changes that keep them from gaining the weight back.

you friend starved for 6 mos, lost weight, and is now maintaining by eating at or below the recommended daily sustenance of 1200 calories. if she can eat healthily now and maintain, great for her; but in many cases folks rebound from the severely restricted caloric intake during their extreme loss phase, to eating more calories and their slow metabolism packs the weight back on quickly.

it may be a way to stay thin, and it may have worked for your friend, but she's just one example. there are exceptions to most generalizations.

anie!! I know the whole starvation mode nonsense gets blown up around these boards ...it's kind of funny really the notion that if you create a caloric deficit that exceeds 500 cals a day either through calorie restriction or excercise then uh-oh sound the alarms your metabolism will think you're starving and then it will come to a grinding halt and you won't lose a pound because your body will hang on to every once of fat 

 I would never question it or think twice if someone just said the truth... that being that it is just plain unhealthy and very stressful for the body when we over restrict the calories period! But all this crap about the body hanging on to fat for dear life because it thinks you're starving it when you over restrict cals is crappola! :)

 The plan your friend was on is also known as the 2468 plan where you eat 200 one day(basically fasting?) 400, then 600 then 800 and unfortunately it is sort of anorexia in the early stages. It works but it is so dangerous!! It's dangerous not because of what people think ....that your metabolism will slow down and you'll lose muscle yadda yadda ..blah (you will lose muscle but only at the very END of starving the body has no choice but to deplete glycogen stores then fat stores first!)  Anways..the main reason this is dangerous is because it will really mess up the electrolyte balance and that can cause all kinds of problems but that is a different thread altogether.

 There are easier ways to lose 30 pounds in 6 months!! Eat and EXCERCISE!!!

I know it's slow and it is so annoying and at times it tests our patience with stubborn and long plateaus but it's just so much better to do it the healthy way then to torture ourselves  physically and mentally through starvation.

Please remember this...Your thoughts help create who you are and then your actions CONFIRM it (your actions confirm your beliefs)...so..

Think about it--It's hard to feel good about yourself when you are hurting your body instead of taking care of it. This is the very reason that anorexics and bulimics become very withdrawn and depressive...it's no longer about the weight anymore at that point it is about a way in which they are treating their own body that shames them and it is because they know what they are doing to themselves is very inhumane.

anyways...be good! Whether you buy into the starvation mode thing or not it doesn't matter because starvation just isn't an option for the sane! :)

..but 30lbs in 6 months? That's like 5 lbs a month. Surely that's not even close to excessive. In fact, I believe it's recommended.

I'm not sure I really get the problem. Seems to me the body is more flexible than 24hr gains and deficits.

Ah well, that's why I keep reading

zoe

Try 20lbs in a month. : )

Loss of weight? Yep, definitely. But, loss of hair, too and they are not growing back, sigh.

Actually, I went to see a nutritionist and eating any amount below your maintenance/average calories for your age/weight/height will slow down your metabolism.

The only way to increase it, is to exercise.

Try reading this article. It makes sense to me.

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

Hope it helps

BG

Maybe its something to do with the fact she seemed to use the 'zig-zag' method?

Yes, I think it's a combination of that and getting more calories. A lot of people don't eat back when they work out. A 500-800 deficit per day is rule of thumb.

BG

30 pounds in 6 months?   I bet her muscles are really damaged.   Hopefully she doesn't have any heart troubles or any other damage caused by this stupid diet.

And hey 30 pounds in 6 months while decent isn't that great.   You can lose more than that in 6 months with enough work at it even facing a plateau in the middle.

Anie,

It's really simple.  Almost everyone who does what she did will fail because their bodies are so conditioned to getting those calories that they eventually give in and start eating again.   However, she sounds like one of the maybe 1% of people who can have long term success with that strategy.  Simply stated, she had the discipline to out last her body's conditioned hormonal demands to eat until that conditioning finally re-adjusted to her lower caloric intake.   On average, a body at rest (e.g., not exercising) burns about 60 calories an hour.  If she's smaller, then say 50 calories for her.  So that's about 1,200 calories a day.  So if she's eating a healthy 1,200 daily, there's no reason why she should put the weight back on.  If she's still exercising, she'll need the equivalent additional calories to what she's burning in her workouts to maintain her healthy weight.     As always, it just comes down to the numbers.

Anie,

One more thing.  workoutaddict (#4 above, I think) is absolutely right.  The body has no mechanism to "hang on" to fat or to "resist" metabolizing fat when practicing calorie restriction.  The body is going to burn fat to get the energy it needs, period.    I think a lot of those statements come from people who haven't been able to keep their discipline and so started eating in excess again, and then wrongly - and probably not even conciously - rationalized that their bodies had "refused" to burn any more fat.    The body has no 'intent' in that regard - those explanations are just a form of anthropomorphism.

the point is, the woman in the example didn't fail -- after she lost the weight she wanted to, she went on a sensible diet and maintained her weight loss.  That's not failure.

anie87, I don't put much stock in the starvation mode theory - but I do put a lot of value on nutrition.  She can't possibly have been getting a nutritious diet during those 6 months.  She is now, and that is definitely a plus, but for those 6 months she severely deprived her body of the nutrition it needs.

And, she could have done it without sacrificing nutrition.  It may have taken longer, but it would have happened.

I'm just glad that she's on a nutritious diet now.  Better late than never!!! 

Check out this thread, one of manewell's fantastic contributions.

There is a study discussed in the middle of her post that, I think, may be the source of the "your body hangs onto fat in starvation mode" theory.  On a starvation diet, the weight that lean people lost was about 64-72 percent lean mass - i.e., muscle - and only 28-36% fat.  So, in other words, the people who were not obese lost twice as much muscle as fat on a starvation diet.  For some reason obese individuals don't have the same problems on a starvation diet ... only 6% of their weight loss was from muscle.

I'm sure there are exceptions, and I acknowledge there is a whole lot we don't know about how the metabolism works ... but attempting this kind of diet for the sake of a few "vanity" pounds seems a little, well, foolhardy to me.  For obese people it's a different issue because the risk of obesity-related disease might begin to outweigh the risks of a starvation diet ... but even so, it shouldn't be attempted without a doctor's supervision.

And I just don't understand why people would do these things when there are easier, more pleasant, more sustainable, equally effective, tried and true methods like the C-C diet/lifestyle change!  ;-)

I agree with manewell. Regardless of whether one loses weight or not by severely restricting calories, goes into starvation mode or not, hits a plateau or not, restricting calories as low as that over a long period of time deprives the body of essential nutrition. This puts a strain on the entire system- brain, heart, immune system etc. can all be affected so it is likely to have both long term and short term effects on one's health.

It is important to look past the "whether or not this will help with weight loss" and at the bigger picture.

For almost 1 month, I ate 1,200 calories a day, which is supposedly way too low for a man. In retrospect, it wasn't enough food, but you know what? I lost a ton of weight very quickly and built muscle mass at the same time through exercise.

Eventually my body just couldn't take eating that little anymore, but for the time I did it, it worked, and it worked well. In fact, when I started eating that little, I knew it wouldn't be sustainable for a long period of time, and that eventually I would need to eat more.

"Starvation mode" as defined by a lot of people on these forums, is probably bs, and wouldn't occur until someone continued eating that little long after their fat stores were used up.

I'm in maintenance mode now, eating 2,300 cals a day. I probably could've eaten 2,000 cals a day and lost all the weight I lost, but it would've taken forever.

Hmmm...that has me wondering if 1000-1200 calories a day would work for me...

Just finished two cups of soup, my only meal so far

I'm not going to lie, I probably should've stuck to 1,500 cals a day.

The thing with eating 1,200 a day is that you have to make the most out of each calorie. This meant no breakfast and no snacks. Meals were either half protein half grain/veggie with a piece of fruit, or in some cases, almost 100% protein/fat. It took careful planning to make sure the intake for the day was balanced.

I am on a 1200 calorie diet right now and no eating back for exercise! The difference is, I am being medically supervised, meaning my doc has examined me, determined that the diet has no contra-indications. I have been given guidance as to how to pack my nutrients into those 1200 calories and in 4 months, my blood will be drawn to analyze my blood chemistry and make sure I'm OK. In addition, I use a heart rate monitor to make sure my heart rate doesn't slow precipitously, which for me is a biofeedback indicator that my metabolism has slowed. When that happens, and it does happen at least 3 or 4 times a week, I get some exercise (say a 10-15 minute walk) and eat something (fruit, veggies, whole grains etc.--something with fiber that my body will work to digest for a while).  The exercise quickly gets my metabolism up and the food keeps it up for a while.

In addition to the walking to up metabolism, I walk 60-90 minutes 5-6 days a week and have recently added in weight training. I don't always feel like doing the exercise, but once I've been doing it for 10-15 minute, I always feel much more positive!

I do eat breakfast, either Multigrain cheerios, oat meal, nonfat yogurt or a piece of fruit. I eat lunch & dinner and have a snack once a day (fruit usually) and if I've got room at the end of the day, a snack of a granola bar or carefully weighed nuts. I eat a lot of vegetables because they carry a lot of bang for the buck, er calorie.

I've lost over 50 lb since the beginning of the year! But I am so obese that the obesity is a greater danger to my health than the low calorie diet, the sooner it comes off, the healthier I can and will be.

Again though, I am being medically supervised! Don't do this without a doctor's observation!