Hello,

I've heard about it so much and that your body can actually go into starvation mode if you eat little less for a longer period, I'm unable to understand exactly what is starvation response ? Does it means the metabolism going down so that while if I burnt 3000 cals a day previously, now if I eat less and assuming my body goes into SR (Starvation Response) would it burn lesser calories than 3000 ?

Now why this becomes interesting to me is that I have a BodyBugg and I have the dreadful plateau at the same time. I've been doing cardio 6 days a week and doing weight training 3 days a week. My BodyBugg shows that I burn on average 3300 and some days 3800 calories a day while my diet is approximately around 2000 calories a day and still I haven't lost anything for last 70 + days. Somebody said that my body may be under SR since I'm eating less, would this mean that my body is holding on its fat reserves even though my metabolism is creating a daily deficit of 1000 calories or would it mean that it should go down to an extent where it only burns 2000 cals a day.

If I assume BodyBugg to be even 90 % accurate then I'm still making around 800-1000 cals deficit a day and the theory of Weight Loss = 3500 calories burnt doesn't applies to me, if I assume I'm on SR then I should be burning quite less than what BB shows while it does shows me on deficit and I'm still not losing and now I'm left with following assumptions :

1) SR is something other than the Metabolism going down and it means that your body would hold its weight no matter how less you eat or you burn.

2) Weight loss doesn't happens even if you are creating a deficit of calories or the plain old theory of 3500 cals burnt = 1 lbs lost is true only under standard conditions and not when somebody is going under changes.

3) My BodyBugg is inaccurate and crap

Sorry for making it long and pain to read, I didn't actually find any less words to express it and your thoughts & insights would be greatly appreciated.

Hey

I'm not a doctor, nutritionist or registered dietician. I can only relate my own experience with "starvation response."

I started my weight loss at 200 lbs. I lost weight fairly steadily. From July 2004 to around mid February 2005, I lost 60 lbs. I was eating around 1400-1600 calories a day and tracking everything carefully (okay, obsessively) in Fitday.

I plateaued from Feb to sometime after May. I tried everything to shake up my weight loss. I cut calories to 1200-1400. I increased exercise duration, intensity and frequency. Nothing.

I was about 140 lbs and decided - hey, maybe my body is just done at 140? After losing 60 lbs and fitting into a size 10 (sometimes an 8) I felt pretty happy. I moved into maintenance mode by slooooowwwwly adding more calories until I was eating around 1800-2000 a day (everything else was still pretty much the same, careful tracking, food journaling, etc etc).

By June, I lost 2 lbs, down to 138. Eating 1800 calories.

By October or maybe November, I was down to 135 calories (after a 4 week work trip to Singapore, Australia and Tokyo - I did a lot of walking but carefully counting calories and staying on any sort of plan? uh no).

By February 2006 I reached my final weight of 127. I stayed there for 3 years, eating around 1800-2000 calories a day (had a few bobbles this year due to some work stress and a death in the family, but I'm back at 133 and committed to getting back under 130).

So, it is my own personal pet theory, based on my own experience that my body just got tired and stressed eating so few calories a day. My body said "whoa there, there's obviously a famine, you aren't getting enough to eat, I must protect you." My body said "I'm going to slow down your metabolism, cannabalize your muscle and retain body fat." Which would be GREAT if I were a prehistoric woman or on some wagon train heading west or hiking my way down from the Andes after a plane crash. I would WANT it to do that. That's some genius body stuff right there.

I'm sure our bodies don't "get" the idea of deliberately lowering calories. Your body is like HEY I put that perfectly good fat on your hips JUST IN CASE you need it.

So, my raising my calories to 1800-2000 (note this is slightly under the maintenance calories of someone of my height/weight/exercise level) was just the impetus my body needed to say "hey, there's PLENTY of food, good food, nutritious food, let's get rid of those hips" (and then my body chuckled and said, "but we're gonna keep those thighs...just...in...case").

But how does this explain anorexics and people who don't eat hardly anything and are skinny?

Because anorexics are able to sustain starvation for longer periods, leaving their bodies little choice but to essentially eat themselves. One's metabolism will slow, but it won't stop completely. They just outstarve their BMR.

Your body can slow metabolism, but it can't shut it off entirely. If you don't eat enough to support even that drastically slowed metabolism, you'll still lose weight.

Your body can conserve. It can't turn itself off.

The body tries to protect anorexics too. They grow extra body hair (lanugo) to conserve heat. Remember what I mentioned muscle cannabalization? Heart problems are a frequent cause of death for anorexics - the body eats their muscles, including their hearts to try to keep them alive as long as possible.

The body does miraculous things, but it's not a miracle. Anorexics and starving people do die from sustained calorie inadequacy.

I know, I actually work in the medical field. But I just hear so much about "oh, you're eating way too low calories, so you won't lose weight", which seems like such a contradiction to anorexics (or other people who don't eat enough) who don't eat enough calories and have NO PROBLEM losing weight. Do you know what I mean?

I can understand your frustration.
The body is a wonderous thing.
Sometimes we just have to eat more to lose simply ti kick-start our metabolism back into action.

The trick is to listen to what your body is telling you. If you stall, you do need to alter your course even just a bit to get it heading back in the right direction.

I don't think even diet experts can explain it in a simple way we can all understand. That's what makes it such a tough journey. But it is worth it!

Even at 1,000 cals/day, the metabolism only lowers by about 5%. So says Lyndel Costain, R.D (author of Diet Trials).

There have been studies that show that each diet lowers metabolism perhaps permanently, not by a lot each time, but the effect may be cumulative, therefore three people of the same weight, who started with similar metabolisms can end up with very different metabolisms if one never has dieted, one has dieted a couple times, and one who has yoyo dieted for decades. In general, the person who has never dieted is going to have the highest metabolism, and the yoyo dieter is going to have the slowest metabolism.

If you're not eating "enough," you will eventually lose weight, but why not keep your metabolism as high as you can by eating enough to lose weight only at a reasonable rate. I think that's good for several reasons - it allows you to get in more nutrition as well as calories while you lose, it probably reduces the proportion of muscle lost with the fat, when you reach goal you will be able to eat more to maintain the weight than if you yoyo'ed...

Also, from what I understand the 5% theory is an average. Some folks may never experience the metabolic decline, and some folks may experience much more than 5%. Combining that with the possibility that even a 1% decline, if effects are cumulative for every time you yoyo, you could end up with a very significant difference. Considering that 2000 calories is a reasonable maintenance calories for an active woman, even that 5% is equivalent to 100 calories. Doesn't sound like a lot, but wouldn't you rather be able to eat 100 more calories at maintenance. And what if the effects are cumulative (besides which aging itself lowers metabolism), how many hundreds fewer calories are we talking? I'm not sure we have all of the answers yet.

I think it is safe to say though that for most people, crash diets do more physical and emotional harm than good. Eating for nutrition while losing weight is probably more important than is generally assumed. We tend, I think, to assume that an overweight person can't or wouldn't be malnourished, but often that's not the case. Vitamin and mineral deficiencies are common in overweight and obese folks (and repeated dieters who aren't overweight), so I think it's another reason not to restrict calories to the point that any deficiencies might be caused or exacerbated.

Obviously people who don't eat enough can starve to death, which is what happens to some anorexics. At first the body tries to slow metabolism down to survive, but there is a limit to how long this can work.

Jay

JayEll, you are spot on. The starvation mode theory (for why one isn't losing weight) can only go for so long.

Rinku, putting aside the merits of the BodyBugg for a moment ... if your weight has stayed the same for the past 70 days, I think it's safe to say that your body is in energy balance. That is, the calories coming in are equaling the calories being used, which is how we maintain our weight.

The only way we can lose fat is if we're in an energy deficit, when the calories being burned are greater than our calorie intake. If you're in energy equilibrium now, my advice is to increase your exercise (duration or intensity) and/or decrease your calories. 2000 calories a day seems really high to me for weight loss, perhaps even for maintenance for most people. Perhaps lower your daily calories by a few hundred and see what happens?

The problem with all calculators is that they're based on averages and as unique individuals, we may differ from the average. If I understand the BodyBugg correctly, even it applies formulas to data it gathers from your body rather than directly measuring calories burned (I think you can only directly measure calorie burn in a lab by measuring O2 intake and output but I may be wrong).

Personally I've found all calculators, including my HR monitor, to be inaccurate as to calories burned and endlessly frustrating and so I've discarded them. Instead, I use the scale, tape measure, and how my clothes fit -- real world results -- to determine whether I'm in a calorie deficit, calorie surplus, or calorie equilibrium and adjust my intake accordingly.

Best of luck at sorting it all out and good for you for sticking to your plan despite frustrations!

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks!

Kelly Brownell, big american weightloss/obesity Dr, doesn't reckon there's any evidence that yo yo dieting causes metabolic winddown.

But I guess there are studies on both sides, probably. Arn't there always?!?