Hardly a day goes by on 3fc without the phrases "starvation mode" and "1200 calories" popping up. But is there really such a thing? How can there be a magic number for all women that marks the line under which the body will simply hold on to all fat? I was curious so went looking, and found a few interesting articles:
According to these (and what seems like millions of blogs and forums on the topic), starvation mode isn't a real thing. It's an exaggeration of a natural phenomenon which would happen whether you're eating 1300 calories or 1100.
According to these (and what seems like millions of blogs and forums on the topic), starvation mode isn't a real thing. It's an exaggeration of a natural phenomenon which would happen whether you're eating 1300 calories or 1100.
Thoughts?
Totally agree. In fact, I just interviewed an obesity expert today (I'm a health writer), and he confirmed that if you're not losing weight on X calories, the only way to break the plateau is to eat even less or exercise more. It's not that metabolic rate doesn't go down when you're on a diet -- it does -- but your body can't "hold onto" fat if you're burning more energy than you're taking in. If it could, people in famines would not be emaciated.
I think it can probably damage your metabolism, but agree, that we wouldn't have anorexia if this was an effective way to stave off malnutrition. I'm a bodybugg user and with a few more days of data I'm going to look at days where my intake was higher and more regular vs more spaced out to see if my resting, but at first glance my metab rate per minute seems to go down when I eat less.
Starvation mode doesn't prevent starvation, it only delays/prolongs the process.
Metabolism erosion is real, though there is no magic number at which it occurs. Some people may experience metabolism declines at 1200 calories or at 500 or not at all. It may take chronic dieting to trigger the process.
But it is "real" and anorexia and weight loss surgery patient experiences actually proves the theory, rather than disproves it. While it's true that both anorexic and wls patients lose weight on vldc's (very low calorie diets) they generally do not lose it as quickly as one would expect if metabolic erosion did not occur. If our metabolisms can be compared to a furnace, the less fuel we use, the more efficient the furnace becomes - the fewer calories it takes to keep us alive.
One of the ways this is seen is in anorexics is in the development of lanuga (a downy "fur"). Without body fat to regulate body temperture, the lanugo develops so that the body wastes less energy (fewer calories) on maintaining body temp.
Put a thousand people on the same starvation-calories, and some will die in weeks, some will die in months, and some will die in years. What accounts for the differences? In some cases, we know that metabolism erosion is in effect, because people tend to die much quicker of acute starvation than of chronic starvation. A person who's always been well fed will die much quicker of starvation generally than a person of the same age, weight, and health status who has experienced periods of famine in the past (either naturally or self-induced through dieting).
Without metabolism erosion as an explanation, the only way wls patients SHOULD be able to regain all of their lost weight is through intense effort. Because parts of the digestive system are bypassed, in theory (if metabolism weren't reduced) the person wouldn't have to change their eating habits at all to be able to lose at least some weight - this doesn't seem to be true. It also should be impossible for them to regain to become heavier than they were before surgery - at least not without eating TONS more than when they started. Again, this doesn't seem to be true. If a wls patient returns to their old habits, they don't just regain some of their weight, they regain all of it and often MORE. Another common occurence of wls patients who regain all their weight or even more - is that they're not eating more than when they started. In fact, they're eating less... but not enough less to adapt to their lower metabolism.
Not all wls patients experience the same degree of metabolic erosion. Some may experience little or none, and will lose their weight extremely quickly. Others on seemingly identical calorie levels and activity levels, may lose more slowly, sometimes much more slowly.
If metabolic decline werent "real" it would be virtually impossible for most bypass wls patients to regain all of their weight, but the failure rates are as high as 40% for some surgeries. And there's no evidence that these people are eating more than when they started, in fact most seem to be eating less than their presurgery weight.
I know for myself, my metabolism has slowly eroded over the years. The calorie-level it takes for me to lose 1-2 lbs a month would net me 5 to 8 lbs PER WEEK. The metabolic calculators used to be fairly accurate in estimating my weight loss in my 20's and now they overestimate my metabolism incredibly.
I haven't become starvation-proof, but I have become starvation-resistant. As a result, I would have a survival advantage in a starvation scenario, not related to my fat. Sure my fat would be starvation-insurance, but because of my lifetime of yoyo dieting, I probably have some extra insurance so that I'd likely outlive someone exactly like me who had never dieted (so of 46 year old, 289 lb women, with similar health issues, I'd have the advantage).
It doesn't mean that 1200 calories or any other number is "magic," but it also doesn't mean that metabolic-erosion isn't possible - or preventable. It means that getting weight under control early, in the fewest attempts, with the least amount of calorie-restriction probably is the best way to prevent or at least minimize metabolic erosion. It's likely that some people are more prone to metabolic-erosion, so some yoyo dieters may experience less metabolic erosion than others, but it still makes sense to "stack the deck" as much as possible.
I don't know if metabolism-erosion is reversible. There's some evidence that it's at least partially so (exercise enhances metabolism, so you can "earn back" some of your metabolic functioning with increased exercise, especially with muscle-building).
On one hand, it's important not to become deluded by the myths of starvation mode, but it's also important not to dismiss the realities. Starvation is a variable process, but chronic calorie restriction is one of the pertinent variables. It's great if you can drastically cut calories and not experience the metabolic decline that can come with it - though in my case the erosion was so gradual that I didn't notice it.
I didn't one day wake up with a crashed metabolism. Instead, returning to the same diet/calorie levels produced smaller and smaller results. I didn't go from losing 8 lbs a week to 1 lb a month overnight on 1800 calories and at 350 lbs.
Instead, I gradually lost the calorie-burning power. Maybe I'll regain quite a bit of it, but regardless I'm stuck with the metabolism I have and can't return to the metabolism I used to have.
However, it does make me very aware that I have to make this work, because I can't afford my metaboism to drop any further. And metabolism erosion isn't simply a more efficient furnace. When the "budget" get's cut, processes like immunity suffer. My immune system is severely compromised, probably because of the chronic dieting. There's quite a bit of evidence that immunity is one of the first budget-cuts the human body makes when calories become scarcer (which is why most people don't actually die of starvation, they die of infectious disease and other immune disfunction, because their bodies have "cut the funding" to the immune system).
None of this means any part of the process is magic or starvation-preventing. And all the evidence suggests that there's a tremendous variation in how individuals respond to calorie restriction.
Thanks for sharing, Kaplods. Most of the articles say that the "starvation mode" myth arose largely from the issue of metabolic decline, and I don't believe that is being falsified.
The first night I read these, I instantly thought: "oh, good, I can eat 800 calories a day and lose much more quickly." Luckily for me my brain kicked in shortly later when I realized how a) unsustainable and b) foolish this was (for me). I want to be able to eat a relatively normal amount once I've hit goal, and eating so little clearly wasn't the way to make this happen. I've decided instead that I'll pick up yoga to help speed my losses, and will stick to at least 1200 calories.
Just a note, I'm not suggesting with this thread that anyone or everyone should eat even less. I just thought it was interesting to have one of the "myths" I believed in set straight.
I've wondered about this starvation mode for a long time. I think it's real, but it takes more than one missed meal to achieve it. It kicks in over a period of time. I'm so glad to see the truth coming out more and more!
I think starvation mode (as most perceive it) is a misnomer. It's not that your body won't continue to drop weight as you don't eat enough but that your body will start to experience this metabolic decline and long-term you may be more prone to weight gain and it may become harder to re-lose the weight. But yes, VLCD can start that process by setting the new norm for x amount of calories and your metabolism will adjust to the new norm set for it. Definitely, a case for slow and steady winning the race.
I don't think anyone is denying that metabolic erosion occurs. It's just the sheer volume of posts you see that people say that they or someone else isn't losing weight because they're not eating enough and are therefore in starvation mode. That just doesn't logically make sense. Yes, you might cause more damage to your metabolism by not eating enough and slow it down further and faster, but if you eat less calories than your body burns, over time you will lose weight. This is true if you're eating 400 calories per day or 1400.
Lots of us have stalled out on plan only to meet with more progress when we've eaten a bit more. It's a strange phenomena but not "starvation mode" IMO. Sometimes your body just doesn't let go of reserved fat until it get the signal it's ok to do so. Many of us experience breaking through this phase by eating more and increasing the demand for calorie burning when nothing else works. Your actions really can set the bar higher or lower for your metabolic rate, no matter what people like to call it.
There are many myths and distorted truths in weight loss, as well as ineffective diet tradtions so ingrained in our culture that they're adopted without question. Starvation-dieting is one of them. As is assuming "magical properties" to weight loss. Weight loss businesses capitalize on the pseudo-religious attitudes to sell their products (implying there is some magical formula to success for those who follow the business model without question).
One wrong bite and "poof" you've lost your key to the kingdom.
It is important to understand the science behind weight loss. Though even the scientists don't agree on the science. This makes true understanding extremely difficult, even to those of us with some experience with research methodology.
Sorting through the truths and lies is difficult enough, but navigating the half-truths and true-but-distorted information makes weight loss even more challenging. It's no wonder that failure rates for weight loss are in the high 90th percentile, when not only do we not understand what we're doing and why, we're also taught to fail with dieting traditions that have become ingrained rituals.
What we think about calorie-restriction (misinformed or not) isn't the weight loss-killer that is the "traditions" of weight loss. Those we know are ineffective, blame ourselves for, and yet do over and over because that's just how weight loss is done. We follow the culturally-set pattern, even when we know it won't work - and because we know it won't work, we blame ourselves for our behavior and question our sanity for following the ineffective pattern. We call ourselves crazy, lazy, stupid, and selfish - because we didn't just fall into the trap set before us, we jump in with both feet (because it's what we've seen others do, time and time again).
I'm talking about rituals like starting diets on Mondays, or on the first days of the month, or at the NewYear, even though we know that every minute provides an opportunity to make changes.
I'm talking about the ritual of bingeing after even a single bite off-plan. Of thinking that we've "blown it" and might as well keep eating for the rest of the day, month, or year until we reach the appropriate starting-over point (which we all know is tomorrow if it's not yet Wednesday, which is Monday if It's past Wednesday, and which is the first Monday of the month if it's past mid-month, and which is the New Year's if it's past mid-October).
We fall into the same traps over and over, because we're cultural animals. Lemmings actually do not rush into the sea - but humans will if everyone else is doing it (all the while condemning themselves for making such a foolish choice, not even realizing they're rushing into the sea because everyone else is doing it).
It takes a lot of "unlearning" to lose weight. We have to unlearn all the bad habits that make weight loss difficult, and we have to unlearn the "rituals" that we don't even realize are rituals. We follow the patterns instinctively because it's what we see "everyone else doing." Often we don't even realize that it's what everyone else is doing, we just do it because it feels natural.
There's nothing "natural" about dieting. Animals in the wild don't do it. When they get even a little fatter, they become slower and are eaten, or they use that extra energy to procreate (overpopulation generally occurs before wide-spread obesity).
Our natural instincts tell us to eat as much as we can, because we don't know where our next meal is coming from. And in a natural world, that works well - because food doesn't just lie around a natural world - there's too much competition for any critter to become fat and lazy. We've taken away the competition and the behaviors that insured survival are now working against us.
What has worked for billions of years (competing for food and eating what was available whenever available, and using great amounts of energy getting the food and avoiding becoming food, and expending excess energy on procreation) is now killing us. Our bodies and brain-chemistries aren't built for such an unnatural world.
It's hard to unlearn not only the behavior, it's hard to unlearn superstition. Whenever humans don't understand something, they make up an explanation that seems to fit their experiences. We're biologically-designed to look for and create explanations that make sense to us. And superstitions develop as a result.
Weight loss is full of superstitions, and it's virtually impossible to get rid of them. Even those who fight against the superstitions are prone to them by way of oversimplifications (my last post was filled with oversimplifications, because it's very difficult not to use oversimplification when trying to explain to others - or even when trying to sort through information ourselves).
We all want to know the "bottom line," but often there isn't one, so no matter how we try to explain facts to others or ourselves, we end up with only a partial understanding.
Weight loss is almost impossible to have a good understanding of, because the information is so complex. As a result, we all have our myths we cling to (such as how much water we need to drink in order to lose wieght).
One one hand, myth-busting is very valuable. And on the other hand, people cling to their myths when their overall understanding is poor. And weight loss science is difficult to navigate. Without undergraduate and graduate classes in statistics and research methodology, I'd be lost in navigating the research. Even with this education under my belt, the research is difficult to navigate, and even more difficult to explain.
It's sad that the vast majority of our weight loss experts don't even have the right training to understand the facts and science of weight loss, and even fewer have the skill necessary to communicate that knowledge (and most of those are working in research so are only explaining it to other prospective experts).
Can I just say, thank you SO MUCH for this thread. A while ago I was also suspicious of this "magic number" theory - I read that WeightWatchers article and it made sense, but I've seen people on, ahem, other popular forums get flamed for suggesting that starvation mode is anything other than gospel. So I never dared mention it. You guys are much less judgemental!
I mean, really. The body is not the speedometer in "Speed". We won't explode if we drop below 50mph.
What about someone of a perfectly healthy weight, who's never been on a diet or even thought about calories, but gets the flu and only has chicken broth for two days?
What about your hippie yoga teacher who does a green juice fast every Sunday?
These people aren't ballooning.
It's absolutely not a licence to eat stupidly low amounts. The WW article says it itself. You can imagine someone thinking "If you cut calories by 500 a day and lose 1lb a week, and by 1000 a day and lose 2lb a week, what happens if I cut by 1500 a day...?" NUH UH! WRONG! You lose 2.0001lb a week, faint, and fall off your diet by Wednesday.
Probably 1200ish is a sensible minimum for most people. It's a 1000-cal deficit for someone who maintains at 2200. Certainly I think I'd need about 1200 to get decent nutrients and most days I feel like I need more like 1300-1500, and I seem to lose weight just fine. But it's not a magic number - everyone will have their own level. There are hundreds of good reasons for keeping your calorie intake at a sensible level, but it seems to do more harm than good to invent pseudoscience to justify it.
Starvation mode myth
