The "starvation mode" myth thread (lets see some evidence please)

A link was posted in a recent thread about the alleged so-called "starvation mode". http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/calories /burning_calories/starvation.htm

I do not see any scientific evidence in that linked article whatsoever to support those claims. There is not even one footnote, just anecdotes. If that author has some proof for the claims being made, I would like to see them.

Its possible that at SEVERE caloric restriction that a mechanism like this might kick in. But from my research so far, there appears to be no hard scientific evidence that this "starvation mode" actually exists anywhere near the extent it is being promoted.

There seems to be an obsession on this otherwise excellent website with this idea, sometimes appearing to come from moderators, which is very surprising.

I am 100% open to looking at the scientific evidence for and against this concept, and to what extent it exists, or does not exist.

My current viewpoint is that the word "starvation" is being abused and used as fear-mongering, when applied to an average person without an eating disorder who is eating reasonably. A more correct and less fear mongering approach might be to mention that as you reduce your calories, your metabolism also appears to reduce itself in a linear fashion. A slight reduction in metabolism, seems to be more appropriate.

For example, here is an article which appears to provide a balanced viewpoint.

The Starvation Myth
http://www.weightwatchers.com/templates/print .aspx?PageId=1041591&PrintFlag=yes&pr eviewDate=7/15/2007

There seems to be some evidence that as caloric intake decreases then metabolism also decreases in a linear fashion. But so far I have not seen any scientific evidence from reputable peer-reviewed sources that this "starvation mode" even exists in a human who is not literally in Starvation. If anyone can link to the appropriate documents, then please do.

Of course any sensible person would agree that not eating at all, eating <1000 calories a day, or only drinking shakes is unhealthy and self-defeating, and needs to be discouraged, as people with eating disorders can literally starve themselves, as we all know.

But the way "starvation mode" is being thrown around in this forum does not seem to make rational sense. Again, lets see the scientific proof for how this works, or if it even exists. These  things are very complex, and I am open to any accredited peer-reviewed evidence for and against.

The term is simplistic for the masses.  It may confuse YOU, but to the majority on this board "Starvation mode" is appropriate, and it SHOULD make people scared because it is HARMFUL, and SCARY.

If someone is eating 1200 and exercising 600 off, this will put them into "starvation mode" as well.  YOU can call it whatever the heck you want, but the minute you start calling it a myth, made up, and fake, it's going to give a lot of people internal dialog to call everyone else on CC liars so that they can continue starving themselves.

Is someone going to fall into starvation mode if they accidently undereat one day? NO.  There are a couple of people on this board who seem to be alarmists, but not everyone.  If you want to post huge, indepth explanations, confusing most people, fine, but not everyone is going to be interested or understand, we have a hard enough time just convincing people that less ISN'T more weight loss. 

Quite frankly I just can't keep my hands tied anymore about your recent posts. Do you REALLY know what is going on?  Your profile says you've been here for 4 days.

Not everyone here is a normal rational person, you are doing harm with your posts and claims.  We have impressionable teens who will scew your words to harm themselves, we have ED sufferers of all ages, we have people who've never dieted before.  We have a lot of people who will not understand what happens on a cellular level in our bodies. 

We try to keep it as simplistic as possible because it's important that no one feels discourages or overwhelmed.  If someone wants to find out all the technical stuff, they can go to their doctor, or the library, or take a class, or search the internet, you don't need to make it your mission.

________________________

I've been in starvation mode 3 times.  2 by accident. I was only eating 1200 calories a day and exercising off 400-500.  I wasn't losing any weight, I was just burning off muscle.  Yes, I did this twice because I figured I must have just not given it enough time.

The 3rd time I starved myself for 10 days.  Eating 600-800 calories a day, sometimes I exercised.  I lost 5 lbs, couldn't keep doing it and gained 7 back.  And that was just eating a normal amount 1800, my BMR.  I shot my metabolism and lost a lot of my muscle mass during those times.  I'm still recovering. =\  This isn't a joke or something people made up for fun.

I would request that people refrain from "personal attacks" in this thread, and instead stick to providing facts, evidence, and links to scientific studies to back up the claims being made.

Just because someone "says so" does not make it a fact. So lets see the scientific evidence to back up the claims being made. The article from Weight Watchers linked above appears to be pretty reasonable, and does link to some studies.

So again, personal attacks are not going to help find proof for, or against this alleged concept.

Lets see the objective, peer-reviewed reputable scientific evidence that this "mode" exists, or is simply a myth.

I'm sorry, I fail to see where I "attacked" you personally.  You never did answer my question.

It might be a good idea to make an appointment with a dietition or nutritionist.  Ask them what happens if your calorie intake goes too low.  That way you can get it straight from the horses mouth so to speak, without harming people on this board?

As I see it you have plenty of resources on the internet and the library is also available.  It's apparent to me that no one here is going to change your mind because it seems already made up.

nods

http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/calories /burning_calories/starvation.htm http://www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/28515 .htm http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid0 7e11.htm Are those articles scientific enough for you? Just because it is CALLED "Starvation Mode" doesn't mean it's not the same exact thing you're dscussing... if you eat too little, your body WILL shut down. Over a period of days, your metabolism slows. Over a period of weeks, your internal organs start to follow. And over a period of months you could seriously harm yourself only eating 500 calories a day. I agree WHOLLY with Nocturne... you should go speak with a PhD or a nutritionist, as in the articles I have provided you above. And how can we even take YOU seriously, when you've been here 4 days, with no profile, spewing facts that YOU believe are the "correct" ones? Do you have a Doctorate in nutrition? We don't even know who the heck you are. Just because you don't like the idea of something, doesn't mean it's not "scientifically correct". If you don't believe it, why not go research it yourself to find that it IS a FACT.

I have one thing to say and that a simple confusion is not the same as attacking your theory. The OP has two sources of info. These sources conflict. He/she is confused, hence he/she makes it a public question. It's no big deal really. The links help, the overreacting doesn't.

I think that nocturne made some very valid points in her postings on the thread regarding starvation mode. You havne't provided any personal information, but I think if you hung around the site longer you will see that there are many people with ED that use the site. Whether or starvation mode exists, it is certianly unlikely to ever kill somebody if you suggest they keep thier calorie intact above 1200, but it may just lead some people to engage in bad behaviours if you even provide the hint of an out that eating below this level is okay.

Eating disorders can develop quite easily, I would never condone the posting of a thread such as yours, because It would mean condoning a thread that may lead people to act in ways that could ultimately if taken to extremes, lead them to die. Better we all take a couple of extra weeks to lose our weight, and everybody stay healthy.

I also find it interesting how you demand scientific facts regarding starvation mode, but seem to feel quite confident to make blank assertions, without the use of references in other threads.

Just to make sure my point is clear...I think eating too little, and depriving oneself of calories is VERY VERY BAD, and I am 100% against it, and would never do it. I am 100% against people eating too little, as its unhealthy, and can result in serious health problems. See your doctor in all cases.

I believe in a balanced diet. I also know its self-defeating to eat too little, for many reasons. It also does NOT work in weight-loss over the long term. The evidence is clear for that.

That being said, I am taking issue with the specifics and language of the "starvation mode" concept. If it can be shown by scientific evidence that it exists, then great. But the evidence I am seeing so far seems to point to the fact that its at best a Metaphor, and perhaps even a myth.

The About.com Weightless site also uses that term. But again, sadly, without proper references.   http://weightloss.about.com/od/eatsmart/a/blc alorieslow2.htm

Accurate knowledge is always better than inaccurate. If it turns out that the facts state that one's metabolism slightly reduces as one cuts calories, then why not just say that? If it turns out that no one really knows yet what is going on, then say that. But if someone is going to say that someone cutting a few hundreds calories from their diet is going to throw their metabolism into "starvation", then they need the objective scientific evidence to back it up. That is a very serious claim to make.

Of course, everyone is entitled to a personal opinion, but that does not make it accurate.

Here is another older thread from this forum about this subject.

http://www.calorie-count.com/forums/post/2874 2.html

What is the purpose of this discussion? I understand what you are saying, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue for it. This is a weight loss site, not a scientific journal. Nobody here is a scientist and nobody is going to be able to do anything other than link to articles, which to be honest I think you should be searching for yourself if you are that concerned about the subject. Don't you think it would be more productive to do your own research and perhaps just tell us your results?

Logically, telling people to eat over 1200 net calories a day isn't harmful at all, so even if starvation mode is complete bull (which is isn't, united gave you all the information you should need) it's not hurting anybody. In the real world, this discussion is not going to prevent harm to anyone.

And in fact, this discussion could actually harm people. I agree 100% with other posters that questioning 'starvation mode', whether the science behind it is correct, is completely counterproductive with the goals of this site. Believe me, some people will use even a hint of questioning something like this as complete validation for eating 400 calories a day, no matter how many times you point out that you don't believe in that and would never do it.

Really, just don't, it's not good.

nods

Starvation mode is a myth, otherwise anorexics would never get so skinny.

Do you really think an anorexic eats exactly 1,200 calories a day in order to ensure weight loss? They maybe eat 25% of that. Anyone who truly thinks that eating anything less than 1,200 calories a day shuts down the metabolism and prevents weight loss is crazy.

I don't think anybody's arguing that except perhaps in extreme and unusual circumstances, vastly undereating won't cause weight loss. It does. It may not help with decreasing body fat percentage after a point, especially in those who are obese. It can be counterproductive in the long term and is always unhealthy; it's very rare that a doctor will decide that the benefits outweigh the risks. At extremes it can be fatal, although serious illness is more likely. Metabolism will be compromised even more than by muscle loss alone (slight muscle loss is almost inevitable on a weight loss plan, though it can be minimized). There really aren't any good arguments for extreme caloric deprivation as a weight-loss method and plenty of good counterarguments. However, the counterargument that it does not drop pounds is generally wrong. It does remove the weight. It just removes it from places that it's bad to lose from instead of the ones that need reduction the most, and causes a host of other problems that are usually worse than being overweight in the first place.

Starvation mode implies that it's either/or, and it's not; it's just a term used to describe severe metabolic slowdowns that are caused by undereating over a fairly long period of time (i.e. more than a few days).

Hi tbds!

Wow, I'm actually really interested in your post and when I first came to CC believe me I thought the exact same way about the over done fear mongering regarding "starvation mode" on CC.

I also like this site (mostly for the recipe analyzer) but I don't like when people on here can't handle view points that differ from their own without resorting to childish attacks. I wouldn't take anything personally on here, especially if it comes from Nocturne. She/he can't dispute a point in an intelligent way without a put down, trust me I experienced the same rude treatment from him/her months ago.

You have every right to think and feel the way you do on this issue of starvation mode and quite frankly what you are saying is the truth but it took me months to figure out that you can't go saying that in CC because they do love their fear mongering over "starvation mode".

I originally came to the site for the recipe analyzing feature ...took me months to figure out the boards are for people who want to talk about their "binge foods" ...and how eating MORE made them lose more weight etc. Don't even ask me how the flip doing that is suppose to help anyone stay focused on a healthy diet and excercise program, but talking about binges is what they do the most on here so you could kind of see why they get really upset when someone says "eat less" and that maybe they are making too much out of the whole "starvation mode" thing.

I still lurk sometimes after I use the recipe analyzer but let me tell you I found I had the least weight loss when I started posting a lot here and they rub off on you...I was like actually thinking about food and bad "binge" foods more after being a regular on CC! (I never used to think about food and binge foods before even coming to this board!) 

I lost like 4 pounds when I stopped posting a mere two weeks ago. Anyways, it's not the board for people who are serious about weight loss and healthy eating, but good luck trying to say anything to them if it doesn't relate to a binge or eating more!

Hi tbds,
Did you get a chance to look at the articles and links provided? I looked at the "starvation myth" article on the weightwatchers site. I found it a bit disingenuous of the author to describe "starvation mode" in the same way that everyone else does, then claim there is a "myth" or misunderstanding.

Simply put, if, under normal circumstances, your body needs 2000 calories a day, and you consume 1500, you will lose weight, due to the deficit of 500 calories. If you consume 500 calories, initially you may lose weight at three times the rate (1500 calories' deficit), but if keep this up for a while, you will not lose weight at the same rate, because your metabolism will go down (you'll need less than 2000). This is what "starvation mode" means. It does not mean you will stop losing weight with such a low intake. It means you will not get as much benefit (weight loss) for the calories you cut out of your "normal" diet. It is the natural reaction of the body, to resist the change that is being forced upon it.

The starvation mode does not immediately kick in (in fact, some measures of metabolism will go up slightly during the first few days), is not permanent, unless you keep it up and start burning muscle. 

We are not machines, nor are we lab animals stuck in cages: almost all of us are capable of procuring some food if there is any to be had. Very few people have the capacity to resist painful, incessant hunger pangs for a long time. The trick to losing weight is not to trigger them too often, and eat sensibly over a long  period of time. The other trick is to have realistic expectations of what your body should look like.

hmmm, haven't met a fear mongerer here yet and have observed some incredibly helpful people which actually encourages me to try some more.

i'm also interested in the starvation mode and set-point theory.  Seems lots of people are willing to try extreme measures when understanding how our body operates is probably a better foundation for lasting weight loss

jmho

:( Posters, let's not take this to a personal level. tbds, though some of the first post may seem rude, isn't attacking anyone's eating habits (or if he/she is, then... well then :p ) and is just skeptical about the whole "starvation mode" thing.

Admittedly, "starvation" is a bit much, but it is meant to be simplified for the masses, as was stated previously by nocturne. If people said it your way, it would be redundant, with it's length and all. Starvation mode is easier to remember and type, which is why it is used. :)

Also, there were some good links provided by some of the members of the board, so I hope those also clear up a few questions.

Edit: Um, I do think that lower caloric intake leading to the body holding onto its energy reserves more tightly makes logical sense as a survival tactic, but other than that, I provide no scientific information. :)

So, yeah. I think that sometimes people do respond a bit unresonably, but hey, this is the internet. There are no tones in voice or gestures, the closest we get are smily faces (though unprofessional), and as such people may interpret a post as an attack or meaner than it's author intended it to be.

:) :)

All I know is what I've experienced.  Every diet I've ever tried, I lost weight for a few months then hit a plateau.  I'd eat less and nothing would happen, I'd eat even less with no results, and finally, I'd give up.

This time, with CC, I hit that first plateau and my new friends explained that I wasn't eating enough, and how that works.  I thought it was complete rubbish, but when my weight stayed the same, even though I was eating 1100 to 1200 a day, I gave it a try out of desparation.

I upped my calories to 1500, and lost 9 more pounds in a matter of 5 weeks, more than I'd ever lost before. 

So I know starvation mode is real, and I know that eating more can make a difference when your weight loss stalls.

dm84, anorexics tend to eat very, very little, on the order of 100-300 calories per day. The body is forced to shed fat at that point (along with muscle, organ tissue, etc). I think we're talking about the range of 600-900 calories or so as far as 'starvation mode' goes.

yep, there's a difference between starvation and the process of slowed weightloss/metabolism

-sigh, sometimes it's a real mystery.  maybe in a 100 years they'll have this all figured out. couldn't be too soon!