Starvation mode ?

[nevergiveup]

I hear all the time about people trying to lose weight and not being successful.

Many times others will respond by saying their lack of success is due to them eating too little and being in "starvation mode."

I hadn't heard about this idea before and looked it up.

However, it makes no sense to me--I have known plenty of anorexics and they certainly did not hang onto weight.  They definitely were in starvation mode.

And, what about the liquid diets that used to be popular?  800 or so calories per day.  Those I know who did them lost weight.

 

This article: www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/ sums up what I tend to now believe about this.

 

What am I missing?

 

Disclaimer:  I am truly looking for a friendly discussion.  

[Jasperstone]

Apparently, fasting twice a week helps to shift those unwanted kilos. And you can eat normally the non fasting days.

 

My dad follows this and has had success.

 

I would get a health check though before starting it.

[Night Elf]

I've heard that and wondered the same things. I've also heard that eating the same number of calories each day can stall weight loss because it can trick the metabolism into thinking the body should be at a certain set weight. I don't know if that's true, but when I was losing weight, I did vary my calories daily and would include a really low day and a really high day each week. I honestly don't know if that helped, but I lost an average of 1 lb. per week.

[Guest]

I do not believe in "starvation mode" for exactly the reason you stated. I have never heard of a person with anorexia remaining fat despite eating practically nothing and/or over-exercising.

 

I do think you can cause your metabolism to behave dysfunctionally by eating in a gorge/starve fashion.

[Lolly]

What you are missing is that being on such a low calorie diet is not healthy. Not even for someone who is obese. I have to be on an extremely low calorie diet to lose any weight. My body has decided it likesl being fat. It seems to be a genetic condition. All the women on my mother's side are very thin and fit until middle age, then their metabolism seems to just cut off. Funny thing is that they are still very active and healthy despite the weight gain. What I have found is that I can eat whatever I want and maintain my current weight. If I cut to a healthy, but low calorie diet, I will gain weight. If I cut to an extremely low calorie diet, I can lose weight. It sounds like that would be a good thing. Cut to extremely low for a period of time, lose the weight, then just be healthy forever. However, when I try to go to a healthy eating maintenance, the weight pours back on. In order to maintain the weight loss, I have to eat an unhealthy amount of food. (I am talking pretty much nothing.) I feel awful and get sick easily. Why on earth would I do that when I can be fat and be healthy? I had rather have the extra weight and be able to go hiking, biking, and play, than to be thin and have only enough energy to sit and watch tv. Healthy bodies require food.

 

As far as anorexia goes, I think you will agree that it is not a healthy state. People like me realize that not eating in order to lose weight is not a healthy option and decide not to pursue that as a goal.

 

Being thin and being healthy are not necessarily exclusive to each other. The reason it doesn't make sense to you is because it defies logic. It flies in the face of everhthing we have been taught. However, if you have lived it, you begin to understand it. Or, at least accept it. So, what you are missing is the personal experience of this frustration. Much of this is hormone driven. Quite amazingly, a couple of years ago, my body decided to reset its metabolism again. I suddenly lost 50 pounds. I am still overweight, just not as much. I didn't diet. I didn't increase my exercise. I didn't take any medications to lose weight. I changed nothing. I just lost weight. I did experience some other noticable hormone based changes as well right before the weight loss. (It also coincided with a huge stress drop in my life, but not a change in eating.) 

 

Btw, at my heaviest, I had a doctor offer me prescription weight loss medication. After looking into it and discussing it with him, I asked what would happen when I went off of it. He said my metabolism would revert back to where it was before. I said, "So I would gain the weight back if I continue to eat as I do now?" He said yes. I was eating a very healthy diet at that time. Eating less would not have been a good choice. I decided to not take his offered pills which had significant chances of side effects including causing permanent heart damage. I was healthy. Why would I risk my health in order to be thin and more acceptable to society? Even the doctor agreed that I was perfectly healthy (other than weight). (By perfectly healthy, I mean I have no issues with health and can out walk at a brisk pace my friends who workout an insane amount and have "picture perfect" bodies. They are shocked when I go walk with them for the first time. They think they are doing me a favor by getting me some exercise. Hehehe! I can outperform them easily.)

[Butter]

Some people do lose weight on very calorie restricted diets.  Some simply do not.  I don't lose weight unless I drink a lot of water every day.  Everyone's different.  For some people too few calories cause their body to refuse to let go of any weight.  Upping their caloric intake allows them to lose.  I've seen it many times.  It's always something to try if no weight is being lost because the person may be one of those that has to eat more calories.

[Ann.without.an.e]

There are many resources now beginning to debunk that theory. If you eat really low cal for a long time it is known to drop your basal metabolism by as much as 100 calories per day. That is all they are finding. I think the reality is a normal person's body works so hard against a very low cal diet that the dieter gives up and gorges and that is where the weight gain comes from?

 

Cycling cals will keep your metabolism higher though. Take the number of maintenance cals you need and multiply by 7. Then take away your desired loss per week, 3500 cals for 1 pound per week, etc. now that number is your weekly need. Then you can vary the days.

 

For example.

2,000 cals a day needed to maintain = 14,000 calories a week.

14,000-3,500= 10,500 per week to lose one pound a week.

 

Spread that 10,500 out varying high days and low days.

M=1700

T= 1400

W= 1700

Th=1200

F=1400

Etc, etc

 

Even though it won't put you in starvation mode to drop really low, fast weigh loss is simply not as healthy. You have more loose skin when you lose fast and you are less likely to keep it off.

[Snickerdoodle]

The body is not a bomb calorimeter.  In other words, the model that your body is a furnace and food is simply kindling/firewood is not very accurate.     Energy partitioning is mitigated by many factors such as stress, sleep, inflammation, state of the gut biome, hormones, and many other factors.

[Ann.without.an.e]

I also think we aren't as scientifically predictable as they want us to think. No formula will tell you exactly what your calorie need is. The only way you can know is faithful tracking - like absolutely no cheating for an extended period of time and see if you gain or lose on a particular amount of weekly cals. I am very active so calculators tell me that I need 2500+ to maintain but my maintenance is actually 2000-2200 range. I only know by faithfully tracking. I workout a lot but I gain at 2500 a day.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I have no clue if it's a real thing or not.  Two things that usually come out is that people don't realize that when they are told they will lose 1-2 pounds a week if they do XYZ this is referring to an average.  So if they lost 10 pounds the first week and nothing the next three weeks they are still within that average.  But I do understand the frustration.  You do everything you are told and don't see any results for awhile it's annoying.  And as Charleigh said, it's not really an exact science.  Every diet method has it's inaccuracies.  For example, if you count calories, I imagine a lot of error occurs.  I don't, for example, know how accurate calorie counts are for various foods.  And measuring foods is difficult.  A lot of times they will say something stupid like one cup of spinach.  How does one measure one cup of spinach?  Do you shove as much as you can into the cup?  Or loose?  Or what?  Weight would be a heck of a lot more accurate, but a lot of times it's not listed that way. 

 

 

 

 

[Ann.without.an.e]

I have no clue if it's a real thing or not. Two things that usually come out is that people don't realize that when they are told they will lose 1-2 pounds a week if they do XYZ this is referring to an average. So if they lost 10 pounds the first week and nothing the next three weeks they are still within that average. But I do understand the frustration. You do everything you are told and don't see any results for awhile it's annoying. And as Charleigh said, it's not really an exact science. Every diet method has it's inaccuracies. For example, if you count calories, I imagine a lot of error occurs. I don't, for example, know how accurate calorie counts are for various foods. And measuring foods is difficult. A lot of times they will say something stupid like one cup of spinach. How does one measure one cup of spinach? Do you shove as much as you can into the cup? Or loose? Or what? Weight would be a heck of a lot more accurate, but a lot of times it's not listed that way.

A kitchen scale is great. Then you can measure things more accurately in grams or ounces. The key is consistency - if you measure that cup of spinach the same way (and all of your other foods) then it is accurate for you. You may need to drop your cals by 200 because you are putting too much pasta in that cup so your 1600 cals is actually 1800, but as long as you are consistent it will work, right?

[SparklyUnicorn]

A kitchen scale is great. Then you can measure things more accurately in grams or ounces. The key is consistency - if you measure that cup of spinach the same way (and all of your other foods) then it is accurate for you. You may need to drop your cals by 200 because you are putting too much pasta in that cup so your 1600 cals is actually 1800, but as long as you are consistent it will work, right?

 

I've never weighed foods or counted calories thankfully.  Seems too annoying.

 

I found counting carbs was the easiest.  I would basically only count anything particularly carby.  So I didn't have to count carbs in most meats/fish.  And also most green veggies.  If I had a hamburger on a bun, I'd just count the bun.  Very easy.  I'd look for the lowest count buns I could find.  Those usually were the ones with the most fiber.  Which no matter what diet you are on would probably be considered a better choice over a white flour only bun.

[nevergiveup]

Thanks for the replies.

Just to clarify:  I didn't mean to imply that extremely low calorie diets are healthy.  I'm questioning the validity of the body going into "starvation mode" when it experiences a restricted calorie diet.  The idea that a body is eating too little and hoarding its fat stores, which are energy supplies, seems bogus.  

That is why I mentioned anorexics, who consume extremely low calories, or the liquid diets, which touted extremely low calories.  I have never heard or read of anyone in either category stating that they couldn't lose weight (and I have known people in both situations). So, to imply that someone eating 1000 calories a day is in "starvation mode" seems really off......

[SparklyUnicorn]

Thanks for the replies.

Just to clarify:  I didn't mean to imply that extremely low calorie diets are healthy.  I'm questioning the validity of the body going into "starvation mode" when it experiences a restricted calorie diet.  The idea that a body is eating too little and hoarding its fat stores, which are energy supplies, seems bogus.  

That is why I mentioned anorexics, who consume extremely low calories, or the liquid diets, which touted extremely low calories.  I have never heard or read of anyone in either category stating that they couldn't lose weight (and I have known people in both situations). So, to imply that someone eating 1000 calories a day is in "starvation mode" seems really off......

 

I have read/heard that bodies try to adapt.  So I'm wondering if after a period of time of doing the exact same thing that the body adapts and it does become challenging to lose weight.  It sort of makes sense.  There is a limit to how much weight a person can lose even if they are starving themselves.  You aren't going to waste away until you weight 20 pounds (at least not without dropping dead first).  So there must be some sort of mechanism in one's body that doesn't let that happen.  I have found that when I followed a diet carefully for awhile that there does seem to be periods of time where nothing is happening and changing something to shake things up seems to help.  If things weren't so complicated nobody would have trouble losing weight so I do believe there are various factors that can make it difficult even if a person is doing everything right.  So I suppose people try to figure out what is slowing progress. 

 

Even the whole "healthy weight" or "BMI" strikes me as somewhat arbitrary.  So people set out to get to a certain weight thinking they should be this weight because a chart says so.  But maybe that's not really always ideal for each individual person.  KWIM?

 

I do think severely restricting calories is a lousy dieting technique because it's not sustainable.  So you go several months eating 1000 calories a day and then what?  If you then start eating more you'll probably gain weight.  I don't know if people can get used to living on 1000 calories.  So it makes no sense to me as a lifestyle change. 

 

I'm just rambling here. 

[Amy in NH]

From my research, ketosis is not actually harmful to the body until you start to metabolize muscle; it is only when you start to metabolize muscle that you are truly in starvation mode.

 

I don't think I could do a weekly cyclical fast just because of the withdrawal symptoms on the fasting days.  Once you get over the 2-3 days of withdrawal, fasting isn't that difficult.

[DawnM]

I believe in starvation mode as much as I believe in the theory of detoxing.  Both are tossed around like they are absolute fact and I don't buy into either one.