Starvation Mode Rant

I am sorry I have to say this, and after reading a good amount of post, I want everyone to know: starvation mode is not the answer to everything!

I don't know if it's just me, but I have noticed a lot of useless comments about starvation mode and it seems to be a reply to every question. "Why aren't I losing weight----Oh your in starvation mode". "Why do I have irregular bowel movements---it's cause you are in starvation mode". And you know what else, people are always telling other people that they have eating disorders and are eating to little. Being helpful is one thing, but being disrespectful is another.

When I ask a question, I usually want an answer because I don't know the answer. I'm sick of hearing about starvation mode. If everyone was starving we would all be skinny!

Original Post by spirochete:

Hey guys, can we talk about every post being answered with "OH you're gaining muscle mass!" next?

I started weights about an hour ago and gained a pound what gives. OH! It's probably muscle mass

I eat 900 calories a day and do an hour of cardio but I'm not losing weight. OH! You're probably gaining muscle mass from exercising!

I walked by the leg press machine and gained 5lbs last week is it muscle mass? YES!

 You should start a thread for that...

 

 

I just joined and jumped on and the subject line looked like one or two I have posted on WW and another site. Very funny, I feel the same way. Sometimes people jsut don't know what to say so they just copy and paste the same thing regardless if it is helpful! just made me smile and laugh

I'm still fleshing out my thread on the sarcastic smiley

Original Post by angelamu7:

I just joined and jumped on and the subject line looked like one or two I have posted on WW and another site. Very funny, I feel the same way. Sometimes people jsut don't know what to say so they just copy and paste the same thing regardless if it is helpful! just made me smile and laugh

 Hey you have a Wii.  I've been trying to find a Wii for months...

I LOVE the Wii! lol

Bought it in Oct. for the kids Xmas gift and even forgot I hid it until Xmas morning! lol They were hard to find around Dec. but they are easier now...you can also get them online from Walmart.com (so I have heard). So worth every penny@!

 

Original Post by jennmary001:

First let me say that I am eating 1200 calories a day.  I am NOT starving myself.  My starting weight was 295.   I am 5'2 and 27 years old.  My dr was ready to schedule gastric bypass because my last asthma attack nearly killed me....and my body is falling apart with all of this weight. 

I'd agree for a 5'2" woman, 1200 calories is enough for you to function...unless you're feeling really tired or have some other problems, then eating 1200 or just a bit more shouldn't cause you any problems.  The number comes from the metabolic requirements of an average sedentary 5'1" woman.  A 6'2" man eating 1200 calories a day is going to sooner or later end up with some problems.  It's easier to simply side step those problems by recommending eating more.

Here is my problem with starvation mode.   Gastric bypass patients dont get anywhere near 1200 calories for about the first year......that is what they work up to.  They actually lose most of their weight within that first year.  I have never seen a gastric bypass patient who went into starvation mode and gained weight or stopped losing for any length of time....until they were up to the 1200 calories and at or near ideal weight. 

Gastric bypass patients are usually more than just a bit overweight.  They tend to fall into obese+ categories and do not fall within the parameters of those that the CC guidelines are geared towards.  Not to say that they cannot benefit from CC just that their dietary and exercise needs have to be adjusted to their particular needs.  If they've had the surgery, then they are typically under a doctor's care, a doctor who presumably is making sure that they get sufficient nutrients.  A doctor's care trumps whatever information CC has because the doctor has significant medical training and access to medical resources and is adjusting their dietary plan according to their progress and weighing the various health risks at different stages before making their recommendations.  This is completely different than the person who is 20 or so pounds overweight and decides to eat next to nothing and take a multi-vitamin for nutritional supplements.  This may or may not cause significant health issues at a later date and is best simply avoided by not doing it.

So how is it that they can calorie cut to the extreme and it is tottally cool....but if I do it I am being unhealthy and putting myself into starvation mode?  Just curious.

They are under a doctor's supervision. Presumably they'll contact their doctor for assistance if they should have any problems with the plan and also have routine check points.  You should discuss any such plan with your doctor and if your doctor wants you to, then go for it.  I still think it's better where possible to avoid any potential risks by taking it more slowly but only you with the help of your doctor can weigh the appropriate risks for yourself. 

I think everyone is different.  I actually happen to think that 1200 might even be higher than where I should be.  I think 800-1000 would be just fine and dandy.  Then again I wouldnt say that if I only had 30-50 pounds to lose.  I need to lose at least 160 pounds to be within healthy range for my height.  That is more than 50% of my body weight.  There are several hospitals and treatment centers that would be more than happy to help me starve myself on 500 calories a day.....and they have qualified doctors. 

I hope that you won't decide to do this, but if you do, please do check in with them as often as they want you to.  If you can do it with CC's methods I think you'll find that it is significantly less expensive and helps you learn a healthier lifestyle overall.

I am sure that for some people starvation mode is a real issue.....but I agree that it does not apply to every person every time.

For some it is, for some it isn't.  We do get a lot of people on our boards with varying degrees of information and varying degrees of common sense (perhaps you've noticed this?).  A teenager deciding to go on a very low calorie diet because it worked for someone is just a crash waiting to happen.  Adults typically have the resources and knowledge to get assistance when they need it although we're still prone to doing stupid things and avoid 'fessing up to them.

 

If I decide to start the "OH MY GOD you've gained three pounds of muscle in a week" thread, I'll use this thread for inspiration!

 

I started working out a week ago and gained weight HEY THAT'S MUSCLE!!

just remember spirochete-- not everyone has great capacity, understanding, or experience with health, nutrition, and especially fitness... whether you are a newbie or just a long time 'dieter' there's just no way to know it all-- hell, even doctors argue; i.e., how many 'diet' books are written by different doctors with different opinions?

the basic human approaching changes in health & lifestyle has myriads of false information & beliefs--(ie the great 8 glasse of water rule was debunked again- but people don't care and don't listen!) and when people are casually - not caustically reminded that it took a bit of time to put on that weight & it's gonna take a bit of time to get it off-- rationality usually resumes in said poster--

who hasn't freaked out at some point in being strict in cleaner eating & suddenly wake up to a 4 lbs weight gain and they feel horror in that they are back where they were 4 weeks ago? it's the horrific role weight has on emotions-- weight is SO emotional - as much as it is physical!

and when it comes to women & weight training-- it's only of late that the health/medical communities are touting the benefits of increased muscle mass for women-- and most women have NEVER set foot in a weight room unles they have played sports-- so many women don't have a clue--

and as women who lift, it's better to share the basics for someone to put on a 'bit' of mass to show definition thru bony or flabby body parts--

but remember, not a lot of women have an interest in actually 'pumping iron' on a regular basis and seeing the huge gains that a new larger group of us women want to see...

so why not educate those women who want to lift casually for health & 'some' definition (dreaded 'tone up' word here) - it will only support our women & muscle revolution we are the pioneers of & will hasten the future female generations to know the difference between an ez curl bar, weighted bar, and hollow one -- along with the massive overall body benefits of a squat, sumo squat, ballet squat, etc, etc, etc...

lovin & support-- that's all we want on here! & I'd train with you anytime spiro!

Original Post by spirochete:

If I decide to start the "OH MY GOD you've gained three pounds of muscle in a week" thread, I'll use this thread for inspiration!

I started working out a week ago and gained weight HEY THAT'S MUSCLE!!

Long live the Colorado Experiment...

you are gaining muscl on your fingers curthinks, because you are typing this much! just do not get into starvation mode, EAT IT ALL BACK!!.-)

Original Post by ka2007:

you are gaining muscl on your fingers curthinks, because you are typing this much! just do not get into starvation mode, EAT IT ALL BACK!!.-)

 I gained 2 lbs of muscle on my left arm, from brushing my teeth...yeah, it was from brushing my teeth...

This is going to be long....

I just found this post from a while ago and just wanted to tell you....thanks for bringing it up. I have read so much about "starvation mode" on this website and honestly, I feel like so much of it is exaggerated.

For example:

Today I read a post from a girl who is 5'3" (same as me) and can't figure out why she isn't losing weight on 1700+ cals a day. She said she works out on the elliptical and does weight lifting and burns 3000-some cals per day total judging from the monitor on her elliptical, etc....

And a number of people told her she should start eating more! I was of the opposite opinion, but was literally frightened to post because of what always happens here to people who venture a contrary opinion regarding starvation mode. They are lambasted.

The truth of the matter is, as far as I can tell, yes....starvation mode exists. It can slow your weight loss, but it will not entirely STOP your weight loss as is commonly believed (see article below). After all, the basics of weight loss are more calories out than in. And if your metabolism were to suddenly halt entirely---well, then....you'd be dead because your metabolism is literally the chemical processes which sustain your life! Metabolisms don't stop altogether, people!

That being said, what I would have advised 5'3" girl to do is the same thing I did to lose 17lbs over the past 10 months or so (currently 117--looking to lose the last 7). Eat lots of veggies, fruits, whole grains, and lean proteins (well I didn't do meat since I'm vegetarian). Count cals and keep it around 1200-1300 at first. Your body has stores of fat for a reason...you ate too much. You can't do that anymore.

Also, don't believe the machines at the gym. They lie. They tell you you're burning 9305490 cals. You aren't. If you have a HRM, try to use that. If you don't (I sadly do not), use this website or something. Incorporate  intervals, and mix up what you do. I've tried running, spinning, outdoor biking, tennis, the rower, running stairs, jump rope, yoga, pilates, toning classes, circuit training, etc... (all at college---if you're in school take advantage of exercise classes!). I've fallen in love with a lot of these activities and incorporate them into my personal workout routine.

In my opinion, the truth of the matter is that people tend to underestimate caloric intake and overestimate caloric burn. I think that if all the people on here who thought they were in starvation mode truly were it would be remarkable. I'm sure there's credence to the notion of eating more and stoking your metabolism. But at the same time, I don't think anyone should be nasty to anyone else on a forum because they offer a different opinion. It's not ok for people to pressure others to eat too little OR too much. Basically, calm down about starvation mode everybody. All you "starvation mode" bullied---If you spent half the time exercising that you did arguing about starvation mode, I bet you'd all be a little closer to your goal weights ;)

Oh and here's that article I cited:

  http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_ art.aspx?tabnum =1& art_i d=35501

Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction
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.

Original Post by dowlcao1:

  http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_ art.aspx?tabnum =1& art_i d=35501

Metabolism Slows During Calorie Restriction
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.

 I really like this article you posted, the most informative I have read so far. =)

Before you go thinking that "starvation mode is a total myth" you should read  Living with Obesity at 700 calories a day. It shows how prolonged undereating with occacional slipups can mean maintaining your body weight at a ridiculously low calorie intake - which is the end result of the metabolic slowdown known as "starvation mode".

 I don't like the term starvation mode, because it gives you slightly wrong connotations - metabolic slowdown response and conservation mode is too awkward for most people though, so "Starvation response mode" it is.  

Unfortunately, people are quick to point to eating disorders because SO MANY of them show up on this site.  Sorry, but I don't know you personally and I can't tell you how many people I've responded to who were definitely wrestling with an ED. 

As for this - Metabolisms don't stop altogether, people! - Yes they do too!  That's what happens when we pop you into a box and stick you in the ground.  It's called death. 

For the "It doesn't exist crowd"...  Starvation mode does exist.  I know for fact that my calories get too low that I do not loose weight.  If I eat just below my BMR or a bit above, I continue to loose. I've seen too many people come to this board complaining about having hit the dietary plateau because they've been loosing weight.  Less body mass = lower BMR.  They're still doing the same sort of workout, so their burn rate is higher.  What this results in is a greater calorie deficit.  Weight loss does stall.  For some people, this can be months.  UNLESS they start eating more.  Reducing the calorie deficit is the only thing that gets them going again.  It's really counter-intuitive and not well understood.  At worst, you gain a few pounds.  At best, you find out that you need to eat. 

If you don't loose for day or whatever, that's just ridiculous.  But when it turns in to weeks or months, it's something to look at.   Do I think it's the reason you have an ingrown toe nail?  No.  Do think it causes colon cancer?  No.  Do I think it's the default answer to everything?  No.  But people who are loosing weight successfully don't post and ask what their problem is.  People who aren't loosing weight or aren't loosing weight anymore post and that's who we respond to. 

Fasting for detox is crap.  http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/de tox-diets-purging-myths ; That's what Web MD, a site written by doctors, has to say about Detox Diets.  And the same applies to fasting for detox.  Fasting, at least in yoga, is done so that the time spent buying, cooking, and eating food can be spent in meditation.  It's supposed to be a removal of the self from the world so that you can meditate in peace.  And most of the hoakum I see about "detox fasts" is based on the yogic traditions.  It's all of the fasting and none of the spirituality.  It's done to clear and detox the MIND not the body. 

if your metabolism were to suddenly halt entirely---well, then....you'd be dead because your metabolism is literally the chemical processes which sustain your life! Metabolisms don't stop altogether, people!

.....Yeah, that's what I meant. That if you're around to read this, you have a metabolism because you're alive....

this thread went into starvation mode:)))

lol... totally!!

maybe if we pile more posts in here it'll gain muscle mass pronto!!   ;)

Original Post by moodymomma1977:

lol... totally!!

maybe if we pile more posts in here it'll gain muscle mass pronto!!   ;)

 But... - If you don't post here every three hours it will hold on to all its fat and eat up all your muscles.

Original Post by melkor:

Before you go thinking that "starvation mode is a total myth" you should read  Living with Obesity at 700 calories a day. It shows how prolonged undereating with occacional slipups can mean maintaining your body weight at a ridiculously low calorie intake - which is the end result of the metabolic slowdown known as "starvation mode".

For someone who's generally quick to come in with the solid, studied data, that's a pretty anecdotal piece. Secondly, to some extent, it runs against the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of CC.

I feel fairly certain that starvation mode is not a myth. However, I also feel that most of the time someone comes here with a post that triggers it, the real answer should be mismeasurement/cheating. But, if only for the strong ED (and probably CYA) attitudes, it's a quick and ready point to bring up.

As to the other stuff, there's too much other stuff. I don't really think that adding my opinions and misinformation onto the fire will aid all that much.

The one point I will make is that a lot of people want a highly mechanistic answer to everything. What day does it happen? Exactly how many calories? Exactly what change in weight loss? Biological systems just don't work like that.