digger531

I didn't want to high jack a thread so I figured I would start one.

I see a lot of mention of this so called starvation mode. As in, if you cut too many calories your body will shut down and you will quit losing, or gain weight. SHANANAGINS...Now I am not saying it is healthy to starve yourself but the fact is the less you eat the more weight you will lose. Yes of the weight will be muscle but unless you are approaching 5% body fat, the majority of the weight will still be fat loss.

It seems that this is just more misunderstood information that does nothing but confuse people. I often wonder if the misinformation is responsible for atleast part of the obesity problem. Dieting advice always comes with these warnings.. watch out for starvation mode...or...you may be over training..(also BS for the majority)

What does everyone else think?

Erwin8r

Hate to say it, because I've heard it from a lot of good people, but I tend to agree with you... There has always been a direct correlation to drastically lessened intake when I've lost weight, irrespective of exercise. But before the flaming begins, I just want to add that this is JUST MY opinion and experience--your mileage may vary...

cplager

I've read several articles suggesting that this is a real effect. I also have a friend of mine at work who's diet was down to 1200 calories and his weight loss plateaued. He upped his caloric intake to 1600 calories a day (keeping everything else the same) and the weight started coming off again.

So, sorry, not BS.

Erwin8r

Ok, I'll add one more thing. At 1200 calories a day, I would definitely get down to sticks and bones. I don't think any large-ish male could take in only 1200 calories and NOT lose weight. It would be impossible, unless the level of lethargy was such that he was constrained to a hospital bed or couch. Merely walking around and interacting with your environment would put one at a calorie deficit at only 1200 calories per day. Again, just my opinon.

craigrrr

I believe that the less intake of calories and the burning of calories will equal weight loss. Also like op said maybe wrong advice is what caused obesity I agree 100% just look at who gets subsidies such as grain farmers, beef, poultry,dairy etc.. look at the food pyramid and the new food pyramid .
So yes misinformation causes trouble in every asspect.

Pirkaus

It is my understanding of the starvation mode is it only causes an issue when there are extra calories consumed, while the metabolism is lowered, instead of being stored as glycogen, it is stored as fat and thus weight gain.
As far as over training goes that is true, you can injure yourself causing muscle tears, and joint issues. I did this when I first started exercising to lose weight (this time) and had to take 1 month off to recover.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtraining

sotramk

and everyone's metabolism is different. Keeping one's metabolic rate elevated in relation to one's caloric intake is one key.
There are so many variables I don't believe there is a true answer.
I know "clinically obese" people who are active, healthy, careful eaters, and a few slouches who live on fast food and beer and don't put on a pound.
How a body metabolizes what's consumed seems to make all the difference.

chasm54

I'm neither a nutritioniist nor an endocrinologist so I have no authoritative opinion on "starvation mode". From my own experience, though, I think activity levels are key, and that if one is largely sedentary the metabolism will slow to a point at which it is much more difficult to lose weight.

I'll go a bit further than that and suggest that if one is very active, the metabolic effects are such that one continues to burn more calories even when stationary. On the occasions when I have counted calories while training, I have tended to lose more weight than the calculations say I should.

And I think one of the confusing factors is that people have widely varying ideas about what being active means. If you spend an hour a day on a bike, or in the gym, or whatever, and sit on your ass the rest of the time, that (to me) is not being active. If in addition to that hour you spend extended periods on your feet, gardening, doing housework, walking, whatever - that's being active. There has been some suggestion recently that just sitting around is worse for your health than being fat - and of course, one contributes to the other.

jim p

I don't mean this to be cruel or insensitive. People in wwII concentration camps lost weight and I would guess that their bodies were in starvation mode or doing everything that it could do to just stay alive.

I am no longer over weight but a couple of weeks ago I decided that I wanted to lose some more weight. I decreased my intake to 1500 calories a day for a week and I didn't lose and ounce. So I decided to decrease my calories to 1000 calories a day for a week and I lost 2 lbs. But I developed a problem. My heart started skipping beats. It would beat 2 times and then skip and sometimes it would beat 11 times and then skip. So I decided to forget dieting for a week and see what my heart might do. Well a week later and my heart is no longer skipping beats. So now I have to decide my next course of action. I think that I will reduce the calories again to about 1200 to 1500 a day and if the heart does not start skipping beats then within a month I will be able to increase my riding and maybe the combination will let me lose a few more pounds.

I also believe that starvation mode can be defeated by reducing calories even more but be careful if you decide to try this.

I have often heard that losing weight too fast will cause muscle loss. I don't know if this is true but I do know that with a low calorie diet the muscles are weak. But I wonder if the muscle has been lost or is it just weak because it doesn't have enough energy to be strong like it is when there is an abundance of energy from the excess food that is being eaten.

contango 

I suspect it's the kind of thing that is true but also easily misunderstood.

Most of us in here (myself included) are overweight for a very simple reason - we ate too much and moved around too little. I don't doubt there are a few people out there with genuine medical issues that mean they are very large through no fault of their own but the vast majority of us in here aren't going to starve if we eat a little less. If we eat less we will feel hungry as our bodies are used to having an excess of calories coming in but there's a difference between feeling hungry and our bodies going into this kind of "starvation survival" mode.

Overtraining is probably another one of those areas, with the difference between coming back from a ride feeling tired (possibly exhausted) but having had a good workout, and coming back having worked so hard we did ourselves damage that will take more than a good night's sleep for our bodies to repair. I suppose it's the difference between getting back home and finding your leg muscles ache when you go up the stairs to take a shower, and getting back home and finding your knees are in great pain just walking because you pushed so hard up the hills.

CommuteCommando

I am currently loosing 2-3 lb per week. I have been tracking religiously for the last three weeks using an app that approximates resting calories, then lets you replace those with calories burned working out, which I get from my Garmin. I eat about 80% of what I burn, and am trying real hard to make them "quality" calories. This works out to 2000-2400 cal/day.

Your body is an engine, and if not fueled properly will not run at peak performance, and you will not get the kind of weight loss you want by "starving" yourselves. (About the comment about the death camps; not insensitive at all. That was genuine starvation)

digger531

While doing more internet research (it must be true it was on the internet) there was a suggestion that while your metabolism will slow with a calorie deficit, be it from eating less or burning more, it will slow at a lesser rate. So if you decrease your calories by say 50% your metabolic rate might only change by 10%. Apparently there was a starvation study done, right here in my backyard, at the University of Minnesota in 1944 that suggests that predictable weight loss can be accomplished through starvation however there were negative psychological side effects (one participant cut off three of his fingers with an ax).

In the final stage of this study, the participants displayed a preoccupation with food. It would seem obvious to most that if you were starving you would think about food all the time. Similar when you are poor you think about money all the time. That got me thinking about my diet. I am 6' and range between 190 and 220 on the extremes but spend most of my time between 205-210. I lift weights, bike, run (occasionally), play racquetball, swim..so while I am not obese and in pretty good condition, I could lose 20lbs most of the time, so I diet. I have tried many different diets from Atkins to starvation to the six small meals a day and what I find interesting is my obsession with food while i am dieting. This was especially true with eating six times a day, it seemed all I did was plan my next meal and stare at the clock. Now I wonder if I haven't changed my thinking process to be preoccupied with food, all the time. Thinking about food all the time can only lead to weight gain eventually.

I am still working up to my own hypothesis on this food obsession, but am interested in other peoples thoughts here. Are you preoccupied with food while dieting? Does being preoccupied with food cause you problems? Is this the core of the roller coaster effect?

youcoming

Everyone is different. I did a severe calorie restriction years ago and yes I lost weight hand over fist too my lightest weight ever of 197, it was great and it works! Then I started to get the shakes at work, real bad. After weeks of starving myself my body just couldn't take it anymore, doctor told me to stop being stupid. It takes along time to get it on it will take a long time to get it off. Be careful and find what works for you.

goldfinch

Starvation mode is simply the adaptation your body makes to an ultra low calorie diet. You will lose fat. To conserve energy you may restrict movement, by, for example, fidgeting less. End result is a slower metabolism. You may begin to break down proteins in muscles and organs if you starve yourself sufficiently. If there is no fat left and you deplete enough proteins you will effect the function of your organs and eventually starve to death.

You won't gain weight unless your calories exceed your energy needs but you can slow metabolism enough to possibly stall, depending on energy expenditure and calorie intake. People report starting to lose again when they up their calorie intake. My guess is that the increase in calories give them enough energy to be able to exercise again and resume the little things that burn calories, like fidgeting, so that they are in a better place to start losing weight again. So maybe the options if you stall in weight loss are to (1) restrict calories further or (2) increase calories and have energy to increase activity, which burns more calories and you feel better.