LOCKED TOPIC

Starvation mode myth

My stats: 24yrs old, 5'5, 116 (from 137 two yrs ago)

Hey everyone,

I'm new to this forum but have been reading responses for the past several months to help me with my weight loss goals ... this has come up multiple times before but I'm just reporting what weight watcher's has to say about the starvation mode myth:

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_ art.aspx?art_id=35501&tabnum=1&sc=801 &subnav=Science+Library%3a+The+Physics+of +Weight+Loss

I'm very interested in nutrition/metabolism. I was 22lbs heavier 2 yrs ago and now I've pretty much reached my goal weight (115) before my deadline of starting medschool this fall. 

There is a difference between starving yourself and significantly cutting calories: I don't condone the behavior of anorexics at all but I want to shed some light on this starvation mode idea since I think people are too afraid/lazy/hungry to cut calories when that approach will get you out of your plateau as it has done for me.  I think significantly cutting calories from 1600 20lbs ago... to 1200 to 1000 to 800 has worked the best for me... find what works for you.  Just like the WW article said, as I cut calories, my metabolism has lowered a little but I'm still loosing weight.. just at a slower rate.  I'm not dropping pounds as I once did but my body has never hit a "starvation mode" where calorie reduction was ineffective.  I'm back at 1000 cal average since i'm comfortable with eating that much and it's what my body now needs to maintain my weight at 115... that's with exercise 1hr 4xweek.  

If you're stuck in at a plateau... it means you are eating enough calories to maintain that plateau and you won't loose anything....  Shaving off 200 more calories/day might be a good idea (you might not even miss them).  That plus a little more exercise is the only way to move forward... 

... good luck :)

so then when you don't lose anymore, you cut another 200 calories, and then another 200 calories, etc. Pretty soon your maintaining on 600 calories a day. I don't think so.

Oh my...

*ducks and covers*

Original Post by fringe1000:

so then when you don't lose anymore, you cut another 200 calories, and then another 200 calories, etc. Pretty soon your maintaining on 600 calories a day. I don't think so.

 What are you talking about, that sounds AWESOME!

I would like to believe that is true, and I'd say weight watchers is a pretty credible source.  There are a million different theories about weight loss and nutrition so its hard to decide which ones are true and which ones aren't.  I have only been watching my calories for a week and some days without planning I have only eaten around 1200 (even though my goal should be 1750 or so) and I haven't been hungry at the end of the day.  I look forward to my meals but I am in no means starving, and the worst part was going from breakfast to lunch but I've added a protein shake between then for extra calories and nutrients.  To summarize it makes sense to me as long as the cut isn't too drastic and your body doesn't seem to be telling you anything's wrong, but I am sure it affects different people in different ways.

legaleli, is that you?

*cough* drama thread *cough*

As the article stated, the relationship between the basal metabolic rate and calorie consumption is not linear. Simple maths cannot and will not work when trying to figure the right calorie intake. Everyone's magic number is different. And their numbers will vary greatly over time, even over periods as few as a couple days. See, the human body is an incredibly intelligent and effective machine. When you starve it, it adjusts so that it can survive. It will cling to fat stores for a pretty long time before it will eat through them. The notion that starvation is an effective means of weight loss is an absurd one.

If one wanted to kick start their metabolism when faced with a plateau, the sensible and least harmful way to do this is by doing the precise opposite of what the original poster suggests. Instead of systematically reducing intake by 200 calories, so as to further hinder your body's ability to burn through energy, you should have one or two days at a level much higher than the restrictive one you're already trying out. For instance, someone on a 1500 calorie a day diet would do well to increase their intake for a day or two to 2000 calories, then return to their original 1500 level. After all, if the body's adjusted to the fewer level of calories and is burning slowly, you'd want it to speed up, give it a chance and reason to power up, not down further.

Hi navi84,

I noticed that you are fairly new to Calorie Count.  Welcome. 

Did you get a chance to check out the Posting Guidelines?  They are listed each and every time you post at the bottom of the page.

Promotion of starvation diets or habits that exhibit signs of an eating disorder ("pro-ana", "pro-mia", etc.) is prohibited.

Here at Calorie Count, we follow the minimum requirements of 1200 calories for females and 1500 calories for males.  Anything below this will be considered against Posting Guidelines.

Here is a very rough scientific break down provided by a dietician for a  5' 2", 19 year old female weighing approximately 100 pounds, sitting around all day and doing nothing:


-The heart needs 12% of the calories (144 cals)
-The kidney needs 12% of the calories (144 cals)
-The Liver needs 23% of the calories (276 cals)
-The brain needs 23% of the calories (276 cals)
-The skeletal muscle needs 30% of the calories (360 cals)

Of course, if you are taller or weigh more, you will need more calories.

It is recommended to not go below your BMR as that is how many calories a day you need if you are laying in bed all day.

BMR Calculator

Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. 

Take Care,

UTR
Volunteer Moderator

I appologise.  I'm just trying to understand the whole starvation mode.  I'm definately not starving myself and i never have.  I am perfectly healthy. 

The thing is, you usually can lose weight on a severally restricted diet, the number on the scale will go down.

Of course, the lost weight won't be just fat, it'll be muscle, bones, heart muscle, vital organs and other things that are kinda important for that whole being alive thing that I must admit, I'm a little fond of.

Edit to note: You may not lose weight on such a diet because your body does respond by trying to hold on to every little thing it can and starts shutting down "non-essential" systems, like the immune system, kidney function, you know, the stuff that's not really important...

Original Post by love_lipstick:

Original Post by fringe1000:

Original Post by loislain:

I've been questioning this whole starvation mode under 1200 cals thing.  If you eat less than 1200 cals you could go into starvation mode and you won' lose weight.  Yet don't anorexics eat a lot less than this and lose a lot of weight.  I'm not saying that's what anyone should do, but how can eating under 1200 cals stop you losing weight?  I was ill for over a week and probably ate about 800 cals most days.  I lost about 6lbs.

 Because there is a difference in eating under 1200 cals and eating nothing at all.

 Anorexics don't necessarily eat nothing at all. My best friend suffered from anorexia and she would try and restrict under 500 calories. That is not nothing.

 I'm sorry for the generalization, truly! Of course it's not an all or nothing situation.

Original Post by smartjock256:

The thing is, you usually can lose weight on a severally restricted diet, the number on the scale will go down.

Of course, the lost weight won't be just fat, it'll be muscle, bones, heart muscle, vital organs and other things that are kinda important for that whole being alive thing that I must admit, I'm a little fond of.

 Smartjock, quit being so darn sentimental.

Original Post by mortalmonkey:

legaleli, is that you?

NO!  hee hee!  But here I am nonetheless!

Ok. I was anorexic.. and I would literally eat NOTHING solid for days on end, til' I was so shaky I couldn't even eat ice cream (i only ate it for sugar levels) - bad, bad idea - noone should go through that.

Before that, though - I ate around 1110 - 1200cals a day (I'm 5'2) and cut out empty cals - booze etc, junk food, processed things.. and found that was most effective.

Yes, you can lose by eating under, but you also suffer. Headaches, get colds easily, etc etc.

Now i'm recovered, and as i was in starvation, I've gained more than I like, and drank too much over the past few years - ergo, no booze anymore and back to 1200 cals and excersize.

Easy does it for the best results.

 

Whoa, whoa...Ok, I seem to have caused a little bit of confusion.  As my original post said, I never condoned the behavior of anorexics with starvation...(esp since i'm a future physician).  Why would anyone?  I understand that 1200 average is the recommendation and I believe that sticking to my 1100ish diet meets those requirements.  I would never consider going as low as I did before at 800... although I could do it, it was a little too drastic of a cut and i'm much happier now that i've upped the calories close to 1200.   My original post was more for those who are eating a lot more than 1500-1800 and not seeing any changes to their weight...  a small calorie reduction would help.. starving themselves with an unhealthy diet (1000 or less) would lead to malnutrition like others have posted.  I look/feel/am perfectly healthy with my weight and eating habits.  Hope that helps clarify...

I completely agree with the article, but I do not agree with your interpretation of it.  You've made a decision to restrict your eating (one which I think is inadvisable, but you truly can do whatever you want up until the point where you are causing obvious harm and people in your real life intervene); it's your decision.  There are a lot of people who are not you who might think it's a good idea based on your decision and your interpretation of this article and that does concern me.

The article fails to mention what you lose on a very low calorie diet (muscle, bone, organs in addition to fat).  There is definitely a correlation to under eating and a reduced metabolism, but they don't go into that in any depth.  There is a distinct failure to evaluate the composition of weight loss.  The article briefly mentions that 500 calories per day isn't such a good idea but doesn't go into why.  It also mentions 800 calories as a very restricted diet but again fails to mention why this is not a good idea.

Very few people are short enough and inactive enough that eating below the CC guidelines (1200F/1500M +300tenn +%exercise) is advisable.  For most people the minimum recommendation by CC is actually a bit low.  For the few that think it's a good idea for them we suggest that they talk to their doctor or a nutritionist who is a professional in the field and see what they recommend.

If you tell me that you're 5 tall inactive woman who weighs around 100 pounds, then I'm probably not going to lecture you if you post that you're eating 1,000 calories per day (although I will have concerns about the nutrient content of what you eat).  If you're a 5'5" tall woman working out several times a week and weigh 150 pounds I will tell you that you're not eating enough even at 1200 calories per day.

Agreed, smwhipple. I eat ridiculously healthy low calorie food. btw.  i'm sorry for the confusion i caused..  Don't deprive your body of what it needs.  800 or anything lower than 1200 is too low as I stated in the post above for everyone. 

It's not a myth at all.  In 2006, I actually experienced a plateau caused by not eating enough and then recovery when a nutritionist calculated the calories for me.  I'd been eating 1000 to 1200 a day and had stopped losing after the first 20 pounds.  This plateau lasted for 8 months.  I couldn't figure out what was wrong, and about that time discovered the CC forums.  I posted my question and was advised to eat more.  I thought that was crazy advice.  Everybody knows you have to eat less to lose, right?  I kept trying for 900, which I saw as some kind of magic number.

Then I went to a nutritionist and she put me on a 2000 calorie, balanced, mostly vegetarian diet, first warning me that I was going to gain for a while.  I did gain 8 pounds over the course of 3 months.  Then my weight leveled off and the nutritionist trimmed 100 calories a week until I began losing again at 1500 calories - far higher than I'd been eating before. 

So I raised my metabolism and no longer have to starve myself to lose.  I've lost a total of 40 pounds and have kept it off for 18 months by eating about 1800 calories a day.  I'm about to cut back again and attempt to lose another 40.

So, yes, it's real.  And by the way, 1200 isn't some magic number.  Everyone needs to use the tools to calculate what they need.

Actually 800 is what people being medically advised with one of those liquid VLCD diets typically eat. That's because they are nutritionally balanced so you can get all your nutrients from the liquid diet. When people eat normal food, even stuff like daikon radishes, broccoli and oranges, it's much more difficult to get enough nutrients.

The Mayo Clinic has a diet that calls for 1000 calories and it is highly regimented (you eat what it says on the day it says for the meal it says) and, so, since professionals have created it, assumedly you can get all your nutrients in that number of cals.

Calorie counting where the food choices are limitless,  requires either meticulous attention to macronutrients, vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals etc. in order to come in at under 1200 calories or at least 1200 calories, and more if more than 10% of the calories a day come from nutritionally empty calories.

800 calories under medical supervision is a completely different story than 800 on your own without medical supervision and just eating what people perceive to be healthy.  The footnote to every exercise and diet of checking with your physician is not just a legal way of getting out of trouble, it's truly a recommendation to check with a health professional that has physical knowledge of you and your body.