I've had two friends this past week lecture me about not going too low in my calories while dieting, or I'd go into starvation mode. One of them told me that my body would end up burning muscle instead of fat. In both cases, when I disputed this, I could tell that they got all defensive and were far from willing to actually *listen* to what I had to say - even when I tried to explain how the body loses fat.

I know SM isn't true, but at this point it's just my word against theirs. One of them even provided me with a Livestrong link where some non-dietician is perpetuating this myth, so he feels he has "experts" on his side (see link).

http://www.livestrong.com/article/53...t-weight-loss/

I'd like to get some solid info on how the body burns calories and in what stages this occurs - preferably from a study.

Thanks for the info, MauiKai!

No problem, that link has a couple of good studies in it and some good info.

Well I had always heard about it in terms of slowing down your metabolism which that study seemed to suggest. The study also pointed out people did loose muscle but also fat.

I am going at a slow steady pace of 1-2 pounds lost a week. But I have NEVER been stronger. I went from doing 8 pushups to 25 pushups. The mower seems like a Tonka Toy now. So I am gaining muscle as I loose. I am very happy doing it this way. My blood pressure is way down. I am getting healthier and eating a fine number of calories. I personally would much rather do this.

In fact I think my metabolism is much faster now because when I have bad days they don't bump me up much. Just personally not into the low calories per day way of losing weight. But that is just me. Whatever works.

But it really doesn't seem like it is a myth exactly. Of course you don't actually starve or maybe go in a 'mode' but it can slow your metabolism down and loose muscle. I'd rather gain muscle as I loose weight. And they point out in the long run it is not a good strategy to loose weight at all. But here or there is a different matter. I heard a lof of cultures around human history and of course many around now have 'fast' times throughout the year.

If you know that SM isn't true, then you know more than the experts, because the existence and nature of SM is highly debated among the medical community.

If you're not taking in enough protein, and not being active enough, you can lose more muscle than you want to, and the muscle you lose could be from your heart. Your metabolism can slow down faster on very low calorie eating.

There's ample evidence that these things can and do happen. Will they happen to you? Who knows.

I don't have any research citations to give you, because I no longer have the almost photographic memory I once did, but you can do what I did. Use google and then find the research abstracts online.

You can start with "evidence for and against starvation mode" you'll have to sort through a lot of garbage, but you'll also find study data.

In my own digging, I've found that most of the studies that found no evidence for an increase in metabolic decline tended to use subjects that were younger, healthier, thinner, and had shorter dieting (especially yoyo dieting) histories than studies which found long-term metabolic declines among crash and yoyo dieters.

If you're young, have never dieted before, and have less than 50 lbs to lose, you may not have to worry about "starvation mode" but that doesn't mean the experience of others is untrue.


As for how much protein you need to protect your heart and other muscle tissue, google "psmf" (protein sparing modified fast). Again, you'll have to sort through garbage, so always consider the source. University medical school sources are the most reliable.


There are some really good books on the physiology of weight loss, but no specific titles come to mind, so again I'll share my method for finding them - searching amazon.com, looking especially for undergraduate and graduate school textbooks (medical school textbooks and medical reference books are good too, but can be difficult to understand without a strong science background).

WELL said kaplods! I couldn't agree more

Protein is my primary diet food since I workout, so I don't want to lose muscle mass, especially when I need to rebuild.

I agree with what you said in that in specific instances a fair amount of muscle can be lost when eating too little. But my friend's claim was that even with plenty of fat reserves, one will lose more muscle than fat when going too low in calories, as well as that one will stop losing weight altogether if in too much of a calorie deficit, which also isn't true (or no one would starve to death). On a side note, I'm not advocating eating too little - there are too many drawbacks to it.

Taken from the second post in this thread:

<<In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits… But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit. >>

This is the crux of the matter. The drop in metabolic rate from undereating is NEVER enough to offset the caloric deficit. It simply slows down your rate of weight loss.

F.

I for one believe there is something to the concept of "starvation mode" after many years of yo-yo dieting, especially as it relates to metabolic rates and loss of muscle tissue. I quit dieting altogether 5-6 years ago, tried to regroup, eat healthier (without getting even fatter) and now my calorie intake requirement is quite a bit higher than it used to be to lose weight in the past (I'm losing slowly) I'm at a much lower weight than my highs and I'm 55, post menopause. That isn't supposed to happen, right?

I could in theory ratchet down calories and lose faster for the short haul but I don't want to mess with mother nature and my "recovered" metabolism. Other folks, I don't know about, but I do worry for folks that are trying to subsist on 1200 or less calories (though it's not my business) I just don't know how sustainable that will be over the long haul. I'd hate to be calorie restricted to some tiny number for the foreseeable future in order to lose and much worse, to maintain.

Cathy

When discussing any subject that is not black and white it's always good to define terms.

Starvation mode - the body holds on to everything and you can't lose weight. In the context of dieting - this is the most common definition I've seen. Eat too few calories and your weight loss stops or crawls to a half because your body has entered starvation mode. This is simply untrue.

The first article Tricon's friend linked makes some good points but they have nothing to do with the above definition of starvation mode.

All the research I've seen indicates that one's metabolism slows down when calories are lowered. If there is evidence to the contrary I would love to see it. However, our bodies can only slow it down so much because our BMR is the energy we're expending to keep us alive.

Glad to see two of my faves, Kaplods and JohnP weighing in on this thread.

I think we each have to find that balance point where we're consuming and using the number of calories that will allow us to lose at a rate we're happy with. (of course that's while you're trying to lose, whole different balance point when you're trying to maintain, that's where alot of us fall off) I know if my calories go too low my weight loss slows, that's me, someone else is probably different.

maybe you and your friends could agree to disagree and move on to another topic to discuss, This issue seems to have definite sides, just like many social issues. Sometimes you just can't change someone's mind, no matter how wrong they are maybe use that energy for something more positive...just a thought

best to all