I was wondering what seasoned maintainers think about the question of starvation mode and its impact on weight loss. I find it a confusing concept. Non-dieting people who are forced, for whatever reason, to consume less than is needed lose weight. Is the impact on metabolism signficant enough to cause a slow down in weight loss? I often read of people on this site being advised that they are not eating enough and that is why they are not losing weight. Is that really possible in a long term sense? Surely calories in/ calories out still pervails.
I am not being facetious I am someone who has weighed well over 200 lbs and always thought I didn't eat very much. My interest is more scientific. I was fascinated by Meg's posts regarding people like myself who are reduced obese. My experience perfectly matches the study she mentions. The dieting world is full of myths and half truths and as a career dieter I am always trying to be realistic. I'd be very interested to hear what other people think.
For anyone that doesn't believe you might not lose weight via starvation, consider starving children in third world countries with their distended stomachs. It happens. Your body wants to hang onto the fat it has because it's not getting anymore. However, sometimes it's thought to be the culprit more often than it likely is. All our bodies are different. Some of us may need more cals and others fewer. It depends on our metabolism, size, lifestyle and exercise routine. And sometimes it's all just a matter of eating the right kinds of calories. You can be on a low cal diet, but be eating all the wrong things. You can be eating just right and still not lose because of timing and other things that may be temporarily affecting the body. There's no one set answer. Everyone just has to play with their own calories to find out what works to help them lose. But it's generally accepted that you should always stay above 1200 cals per day. Anything under that and the starvation mode may be the possible culprit. Not to mention, it's simply not healthy.
I do agree that the warning about starvation mode DOES get pulled out more often than is probably warranted. Still, I'll offer two observations. One is that, a little over 10 years ago, I went on some pretty extreme crash diets, not knowing that was a bad idea. Of course they didn't last and I regained the weight, but the big observation is that I was LARGER at the same weight I had been previously. One thing that supposedly happens during extreme caloric restriction (or even extreme carbohydrate restriction) is that the body turns to muscle tissue for fuel to preserve some fat. When you regain "the weight" it comes back as all fat, and the fat takes up more space. Thus, I was larger than I had been to start with, even at the same weight.
The second observation is just that I HAVE seen more than one person who hit a plateau because they seriously increased their exercise but kept their calories the same. As soon as they added some more food back into their day -- sometimes just 100 or 200 calories -- they started losing again.
Please don't misunderstand me I am not advocating starvation dieting. I am a firm believer in nutrition, cardio and weight training. I am just interested in metabolism and we dieters tend to be wealth of information both from first hand experience and constant research.
Incidentally the distended stomachs of child famine victims are indicators of a wasted diaphragm and/or parasites. Those stomachs are painfully bloated and hard not soft fat.
Here is a couple of interesting articles about ''Starvation Mode'' I'm not certain myself about the whole concept because it has never really happened to me... But it makes for interesting reading just the same...
How do I avoid “starvation mode?”
I always love the starvation mode argument. "Don't go under 1000 calories or you'll be in starvation mode." Starvation is when you are not getting nutrients or energy - zilch, nada. It is true starvation – i.e. not eating. No, you will not go into some special mode after 6 hours of not eating. I've fasted for days before, and contrary to the popular trend, I did not suddenly lose 15 tons of muscle mass and become a thin sluggish weakling. I fasted for spiritual reasons and when I was done, I eased back into my regular nutrition program and was fine.
Starvation mode is something that serves two purposes. In the mind of marketers, its a great scare tactic to shock people into buying supplements to make sure they have something on the road and don't go into that scary starvation mode. It is also great to market systems because Americans like to eat. So any system that says, "Lose fat by eating more" is going to sell. The second purpose it serves is for the person on the diet. It is a great justification for never going low enough to achieve phenomenal results - after all, they make kick into starvation mode. Better to have a reason to keep calories up and blame the inability to lose that last bit of ab flab on something else.
Seriously: when you lower calories, your metabolism goes down. This isn't starvation mode. This is your metabolism going down. The thing is, who cares? I know the trend is to say it's better to eat more and have a burning metabolism. Personally, I don't see how a slow metabolism is any worse than a fast one if you are eating nutrient dense. In other words, I know a 1200 calorie diet with far more nutrients than a typical American 3000 calorie diet. If it is sustainable and enjoyable, who cares if the metabolism is a bit slower? The idea is that it is easier to lose fat, but if you reach your goal and are maintaining, theoretically you don't have to lose more fat.
When we're bombarded with images of gorgeous celebrities who seem to lose weight in the time it takes us to eat a Danish pastry, it's no wonder we're often tempted to cut our already low calorie intakes in an effort to shift an extra pound or two each week.
But surprisingly, rather than helping us to reach our target weight more quickly, severely restricting calories actually prevents our bodies from burning unwanted fat stores effectively - and unfortunately, this means that weight loss slows down.
Why does a very low calorie intake slow down weight loss?
Quite simply, your body goes into 'starvation mode'. This mechanism, which is thought to have evolved as a defence against starvation, means the body becomes super efficient at making the most of the calories it does get from food and drink. The main way it does this is to protect its fat stores and instead use lean tissue or muscle to provide it with some of the calories it needs to keep functioning. This directly leads to a loss of muscle, which in turn lowers metabolic rate so that the body needs fewer calories to keep ticking over and weight loss slows down. Of course, this is the perfect solution if you're in a famine situation. But if you're trying to lose weight, it's going to do little to help you shift those unwanted pounds.
So how many calories should I have to prevent starvation mode?
Unfortunately, there's no single answer to this question. As everyone's metabolism varies in the first place, so too will the point when the body starts to use muscle to provide it with calories in a 'famine-type' situation. That's why WLR works out suitable calorie intakes for each member on an individual basis and never lets you opt to lose more than 2lb a week, which would require a severely restricted calorie intake. In other words, if you stick to the calorie intake recommended by WLR, you can be sure your body won't go into starvation mode.
As a general rule though, most nutrition experts recommend never going below 1,000-1,200 calories a day if you're dieting on your own. It's also worth bearing in mind that the body doesn't suddenly 'enter' and 'leave' starvation mode, like crossing the border from Devon into Cornwall. It's a gradual process - so you don't need to panic if you do go below your calorie intake very occasionally.
What's the link between muscle and metabolism?
The metabolic rate - the rate at which the body burns calories - is partly determined by the amount of muscle we have. In general, the more muscle we have, the higher our metabolic rate; the less muscle we have, the lower our metabolic rate. This explains why men, who have a high proportion of muscle, have a faster metabolism than women, and why a 20-year-old has a higher metabolism than a 70-year-old - again, they have more muscle.
Ultimately, muscle burns a lot more calories than fat so when we lose muscle, our metabolic rate drops and we burn fewer calories. In fact, research shows that the body loses a proportionately high amount of muscle with a very low calorie intake and this may considerably suppress metabolism by up to 45 percent.
This explains why it's crucial to do as much as you can to protect your metabolic rate, especially when you're dieting. And this means dieting sensibly with a suitable, rather than a very low calorie intake so that you lose fat rather than muscle.
Is there anything else I can do to stop losing muscle when I'm dieting?
As well as making sure you have sufficient calories to burn fat rather than muscle, it's also possible to build muscle, which in turn boosts metabolism. And the way to do this is, of course, to increase the amount of exercise you do. While aerobic activities such as jogging, swimming, fast walking and aerobic classes help to tone muscle and burn fat, strength or resistance training in particular will increase the amount of muscle you have in your body. And this is good news because for every extra 1lb of muscle you have, your body uses around an extra 50 calories a day! This means an extra 10lb of muscle will burn roughly an extra 500 calories a day without you doing anything - and that's a sufficient amount to lose 1lb in a week.
But doesn't your metabolism drop when you lose weight anyway?
Yes, your metabolic rate naturally slows down a little when you lose weight, but this isn't automatically because you've lost muscle. It's because when your body has less weight to carry around, it needs fewer calories. This means if you weighed 13st to start with and now weigh 9st, you need fewer calories to maintain your new weight than you did when you were heavier. Simply put, there's 4st less of you to carry up and down the stairs, into the bath, around the supermarket and to the bus stop - and because your body doesn't have to work as hard as it did in the past, it can survive on fewer calories! This is why you should regularly update your Goals and Results - as your weight drops, Weight Loss Resources will recalculate how many calories you need to keep losing weight at your chosen rate.
Will yo-yo dieting have damaged my metabolism permanently?
Fortunately not! The idea that yo-yo dieting permanently lowers your metabolism has been relegated to the archives. However, if you've frequently crash dieted and severely restricted your calorie intake without exercising, it's likely you'll have a lot less muscle now compared with the very first time you dieted. As a consequence, it's likely your metabolism will also be lower so that you need fewer calories to maintain your current weight. This is because when you follow a very low calorie diet, you lose muscle as well as fat (see above). But when the weight goes back on, you usually only regain fat. This means, your metabolic rate is likely to have dropped a little every time you've dieted, making it slightly harder each time for you to lose weight. The good news is you can increase the amount of muscle you have by increasing the amount of exercise you do. This in turn will rev up your metabolism so that you can lose weight one final time on a slightly higher calorie intake than you've perhaps been used to.
Starvation Mode is IMO one of the new buzzwords of dieting.
If someone isn't losing weight..."oh - you must be going into starvation mode - you need to up your calories..." Maybe it's true for *some* but personally, when I reduce my calories, I lose weight.
Maybe if you ramped your calories down to below 1,000 (what doctors would term a "VLCD" = Very Low Calorie Diet which I think would actually be around 800 or lower) for an extended period of time, one MIGHT go into 'starvation mode'. However, back in 1990, when I was on a 12-week medically monitored liquid diet fast - three months on 800 calories a day (nope - I didn't cheat ONCE during the 12 weeks, nor during the extended gradual refeeding period afterwards) plus daily exercise (brisk hillwalking and low-impact aerobics classes) I steadily lost weight during the 12 weeks - from 265 pounds to about 206 lbs. (and following the fast period, I continued to lose weight - by the end of the study I was around 177 lbs, if memory serves.) Sure, there were weeks when I lost less weight than other weeks, but that's the nature of weight loss.
(BTW I think what almostheaven is referring to as far as the symptoms of children suffering from famine is known as kwashiorkor. The swelling belly is caused by edema (excessive fluid buildup) not by food or fat - as per the US National Library of Medicine's website.)
I'm not advocating VLCD's - I must stress again that I (along with the other study participants) were MEDICALLY MONITORED for 26 weeks, including the 12 week fast period, to ensure that we stayed healthy. Going on a crash diet is for many people a HUGE pendulum swing - you know how that works...if you bring the pendulum far to one side, when you let go the momentum will take the pendulum way to the other side. (probably not explaining this too well but there ya go).
(BTW I think what almostheaven is referring to as far as the symptoms of children suffering from famine is known as kwashiorkor. The swelling belly is caused by edema (excessive fluid buildup) not by food or fat.)
Actually Kwashiorkor is a childhood disorder caused by lack of protein. The liver is supplied with insufficient amino acids which leads to a decreased production of albumin and other blood proteins that maintain the colloid osmotic pressure (which is the pressure is responsible for keeping the fluid in your vessels where it belongs). This leads to abdominal edema i.e. the swollen belly.
You see the similar abdominal swelling in alcoholics suffering from protein deficiency.
Victims of famine are probably the ones who know the true meaning of starvation mode but don't normally have any fat to hang on to and certainly never have the luxury of worrying about dieting.
I agree with Mrs Jim, when I reduce my intake I lose weight and I personally need to go quite low to do so. I do spread my food over course of the day but I am not sure if this is to keep my metabolism stoked or to keep hunger at bay.
I was thinking about body builders as an example. When they are nearing competition time they will drastically cut their intake to get as lean as possible. I have heard stories of very low calorie diets for large, muscular men and women. It must work or they wouldn't keep doing it.
I am also curious if anyone knows the origin of the 1200 calorie floor that is often mentioned. Was this figure originally based on some research or is it just something we all accept because we've heard it so many times?
I'd like to know the answer to Alberta's question too. I'm not very tall and fitday says my basal is about 1300 cals. I always understood that under 1200 cals, the trick is to pack in all the nutrients you need. I don't know that for certain (I guess), it's just what I always thought.
I'd like to address the term 'plateau'. It might be another one that we toss around pretty freely. I have found that I can maintain a weight (even tho' I'm essentially doing all the right things) for 2 or almost 3 weeks surrounding my period.
There isn't necessarily a direct corelation between calories eaten and calories burned for a variety of reasons and we, as women, should know that.
Now, if the situation were to drag on for longer ... I don't know about that ... perhaps the difference between "natural fluctuations" and "plateaus" is the time span?
I think the term starvation mode gets used way too often here also. When I was losing the biggest chunk of my weight, I doubt that regularly I ate over 1000 calories a day, and I was exercising a lot. I was hungry, but getting the fat off was the most important thing in the world to me. It came off- no plateaus, no cheating. Those 1000 calories were extremely high in nutritional value, though, and I was doing (and continue to do) a lot of heavy weight training to ensure that I lost fat and not muscle.
Back in the early 80's I was on a commercial weightloss clinic diet where I wasn't supposed to go over 700 calories per day. I was a distance runner and racquetball player (and in retrospect, NOT fat!) and I'm sure I initially was burning more that 700 calories through daily activity, let alone my RMR. I think I did enter starvation mode on that diet- after a few weeks I felt horrible, stopped losing weight (my goal was 110 and I got stuck at 113 no matter how little I ate or how far I ran), became spacey and ineffective at work. The "counselor" couldn't figure out why I wasn't losing the last 3 pounds and kept accusing me of cheating. That diet ended when I discovered I was pregnant, which considering my health seems like a miracle. I gained 65 pounds with that pregnancy, probably due to being told to STOP DIETING. Wow, after living on 700 calories for several months, mind and body overreacted!
Starvation mode certainly exists- you can read about the Minnesota Starvation Study conducted on conscientious objectors during WWII. But these men were put on very low calorie and nutrient diets, way below the 1600 calorie level that some of our posters worry about.
When I see menus posted and a lot of the replies are "I don't think you are eating enough" I usually refrain from posting because IMO they are usually eating more than enough, but not enough healthy food. Sugar free puddings, 100 calorie snack packs, most breakfast cereals, most breads, pasta, concoctions with sugar-free coolwhip...these are empty calories. Get rid of them, add some real food, add a lot of fresh vegetables and lean proteins, and you'll lose weight.
Most competitive bodybuilders do NOT drastically cut their intake before comptetition, but monitor their nutrient ratios extremely carefully, and eat only nutient dense foods. It takes a lot of complex carbs and lean protein to maintain muscle, and no bodybuilder is willing to sacrifice muscle. They clean up their diet- chicken, lean fish, egg whites, brown rice, oatmeal, sweet potatoes, and lots of green vegies. Strictly monitored selected fats. No sauces, sugars, alcohol, dairy (it tends to hold water in the skin, "softening" the look), and for women, LOTS of cardio. But lots of food. One of my friends is preparing for a comp on October 1. She is 5'3" and weighs about 120 now and will probably weigh about 114 on comp day with a bf% 8-9%. A typical meal for her is 7 oz of plain chicken breast, 1/2 cup of brown rice, and a cup of broccoli. SIX times a day! Two to three days before competition, most bodybuilders jiggle carbs and water, but that is strictly to achieve a "show look", not for fat loss. If the fat isn't gone by then, it's too late.
This is truly an interesting topic for me, albeit one of the most confusing to get a grip on.
I have always wondered if it is possible to keep weight off if you lose it rather quickly. The "experts" say no way - but then you look at people like MrsJim who went on an 800 calorie diet for 3 months, kept the weight off and lost more. How does this coincide with what is constantly touted by media and such?
Do you think it is better for some people to lose weight quickly at the beginning to see results for motivation (providing they are eating the highest quality and working out)?
I have a friend who swore by "The Rotation Diet" by Martin Katahan (sp?). She said you eat 600 calories for 3 days, 900 for 4 days. The next week you eat 1200 calories. Then you go back to the 600/900 rotation the following week. Then you "break" from dieting, and gradually increase your intake by 300 calorie increments -- and go back to the "rotating" when you are ready to lose more weight.
I thought my friend was off her rocket but it worked for her and I had a hard time believing that. I was intrigued and wanted to try it but couldn't do it. A part of me thinks just losing the first 10 lbs quickly would be extreme motivation to continue at a slower pace.
Sorry for the long ramble, and I don't really have a conclusion on this, just some random thoughts that I wanted to get down.
I have always wondered if it is possible to keep weight off if you lose it rather quickly. The "experts" say no way ...
IMO, it's hard to keep weight off, period, regardless of how fast or slow we initially lose it. The only reason that I can think of for slow weight loss being better for maintenance is that it gives you a longer time to learn the skills and behaviors that will keep the weight off for life.
I lost 122 pounds in 50 weeks ... about 2.5 pounds per week on average, though in realty it was much more in the beginning and less than 2 pounds a week at the end. Was it 'fast'? Or 'slow'? I don't know -- it's how fast my body decided to give up the fat when I completely changed my exercise and nutrition programs.
In the end, all that matters to me is that I've kept the weight off for more than three years now. I don't think my life today would be any different today if it had taken me two years to lose the weight instead of one ...
In reality, WE'RE the experts here. It doesn't matter what 'they' say about weight loss and maintenance -- we're the ones living it every day!
... IMO they are usually eating more than enough, but not enough healthy food. Sugar free puddings, 100 calorie snack packs, most breakfast cereals, most breads, pasta, concoctions with sugar-free coolwhip...these are empty calories. Get rid of them, add some real food, add a lot of fresh vegetables and lean proteins, and you'll lose weight.
I have always wondered if it is possible to keep weight off if you lose it rather quickly. The "experts" say no way - but then you look at people like MrsJim who went on an 800 calorie diet for 3 months, kept the weight off and lost more. How does this coincide with what is constantly touted by media and such?
I would not advocate going on a VLCD for the vast majority of people, even though I did so (keep in mind that this was back in 1990). It's important that I add a caveat here - the study lasted a total of 18 months (the 3 month fast was only a part of it). Out of the over 1,000 study participants (all women) only three to five percent had maintained most or all of the weight loss by the end of the study (about 15 months after the fast period). That means that ninety-five to ninety-seven percent of the participants gained back most or all of the weight back in just a little over a year's time.
Of course, when I first heard about the study, the attraction was the opportunity to go to Optifast - after all Oprah had just done her famous "wagon load of fat" episode and liquid fasts were IN. In retrospect though, far more valuable than the shakes was the high level of professional support I got from Stanford's School of Medicine staff - we were required to attend group support and education sessions each week for the first six months of the study (as well as weekly medical checkups, including blood draws, EKGs and whatever else they felt necessary). At the same time, I threw myself enthusiastically into exercise - I guess it was just 'my time' to do something about my life to make it better
And after the study, the rest of the weight came off pretty slowly, especially in comparision. I just kept learning, kept active and the weight gradually came off - there were periods where I was 'treading water' (meaning not losing weight) and that was okay.
I love what Mel said about the erzatz 'diet' foods that we see mentioned in posts, etc so often. You know, that originally when the low-fat diet was first popularized (I remember it being the T-Factor Diet) it actually was not a bad plan - it was when two things happened 1) the mindset of "if low-fat is good, no-fat is even better" became popular thanks to profiteers like Susan Powter - of course we know now that we ALL need healthy fats in our diets! and 2) when the fat-free/low-fat products came out - of course most of them were NOT low in calories. Remember those Entemann's 'fat-free cakes' for example? (and this is a good example because they tasted pretty bad but people bought 'em anyway...) I think a lot of people who wouldn't normally eat chips, cookies, etc started eating the fat-free/low-fat ones because they were marketed almost as health food! Like eating a half a package of Snackwell's Cookies was equivilant to eating a salad or something. Aiyyiyiyiyiyiyiyi...
(BTW - I can see that happening NOW, again...this time with the South Beach Diet - a good healthy plan, based on lean protein, veggies and fruits...but I see that "SBD" products have been filling the store shelves - SBD cereal, cookies, lunchables, etc. etc...I can bet money there are folks buying those products and eating as much as they want of them thinking "they're DIET PRODUCTS - they won't hurt me... )
Starvation Mode
Maybe it's true for *some* but personally, when I reduce my calories, I lose weight.
It doesn't matter what 'they' say about weight loss and maintenance -- we're the ones living it every day! 
'nuf said!!
