I'm sorry to hear of your struggle. My comments are definitely not directed at a case like yours. I hope that was clear.

I think "starvation mode" gets conflated with the idea that eating too few calories makes it difficult to get the nutrients we need to fuel vital functions. That's what the 1200 calorie threshold that gets thrown around a lot is based on, I think. It's certainly true that you can lose weight on 300 calories a day but, as the poster above noted, you'll also lose your hair and are undoubtedly doing damage to yourself over the long term.

I think a lot of the dogmatism about weight loss stems from the fact that we all wish it were a strict mathematical equation - e.g., a 500 calorie daily deficit x 7 days = 1 pound loss per week. But it doesn't work that way, so people come up with all sorts of theories about how to make it work - eat more! no carbs! calorie cycling! - when really, it's all about patience and commitment.

YES! Exactly! I also agree with everything else you said!

I also think the whole 'starvation mode' thing is a lot of rubbish. I personally think that at 210lbs there's no way my body will go into 'starvation mode' at 1200 cals a day. It also frustrates me when I see people telling others that their goal weight is too low or too high for their height. Drives me crazy. And the breakfast thing, OH!! That annoys me. You will not gain weight or slow down your metabolism by not eating breakfast. Argh.

thanks for your kind words and i totally understand your post. it's an interesting topic, and one i find confusing. it's great, hearing all the input on the subject.

The starvation mode debate will be neverending. When I visited a nutritionist, she put me on a 1200 cal diet and when I began exercising vigorously, she advised me to "up" my calories to around 1400. That's it. I weighed 307lbs at the time and most people would assume that the amount of calories would put me in starvation mode.
It didnt. I lost weight, but I got off plan and went on a cheeseburger binge for a few months. I now stick to a plan of my own making that caps at 1500 cals. If I dont hit 1500, I dont shoot myself. I eat when I'm hungry and I don't eat when I'm not hungry.
I find that a lot of people mistake hunger cues because they have been overfeeding their bodies so much and not properly hydrating themselves. I fasted for 24 hours (only water/tea etc, no solids) and that taught me to understand what being hungry was really like. and from there, I was able to stick to my current plan.
But, ppl are inundated with useless and incorrect information and they have to share it with others, never taking into consideration the damage they may be causing.

This is obviously a hot topic and I'm not bothering to read all the responses... all I can say is that from my experience, I think your body holding onto fat CAN happen... though 'starvation mode' was never something my nutritionist mentioned specifically and I'm sure there is a lot more to it, having to do with chemical/hormonal imabalances and the like. I was doing 45 minutes of intense cardio 4-5 days per week on 1000 calories per day, and couldn't lose a pound. I finally saw a nutritionist and he upped my calories to 1200-1400, and I finally lost 15 pounds in three months. So... 'starvation mode' or not, difficulty losing weight because of too FEW calories is real.

I also agree that "starvation mode" is a term that's overused and often not-well understood when it is being used.

And yet, I've experienced some strange things in my own weight loss that fall under the "starvation mode" umbrella. Such as learning that to lose about the same amount of weight, I can choose to eat 1500 calories of high-carb food, or 1800 calories of low-carb food.

One of the theories behind "starvation mode" is that if your body gets too few calories, it stops "spending" calories on nonessential body processes (like hair and nail growth - which is why many people lose hair when they diet and like the immune system).

A recent study found that even mild calorie restriction can impair immune function (that doesn't mean don't cut calories, but it might be prudent to be more careful with hand-washing and other hygeinic practices while trying to lose weight).

It might be coincidence, but I have found that if I cut calories too drastically, I do seem to get sick more often.

I also discovered that my body temperature is about one whole degree higher on lower-carb eating than high-carb eating, which suggests that my metabolism is "burning" more on low-carb (as it generally takes more calories to maintain a higher body temperature).

None of this means that I have a "magic number," but it does suggest that there's more to the calorie question than simple math would suggest. Not only are all calories NOT equal, there's a point at which cutting calories more drastically doesn't yield more dramatic results, and that sometimes increasing calories actually CAN help you lose more weight (just one possible cause aside from the ones I've alluded to, is having more energy for exercise. When I eat too few calories, I do get fatigued more easily, so eating more also can allow me to burn more perhaps not just on physical movement, but maybe immune function and other processes I have no way to measure).

What it really means is that all of us are left with mostly trial and error. We probably need to experiment to find the balance that works best for us, emotionally and physiologically. Cutting calories isn't the only answer. Changeing the nutrient balance, experimenting with different exercise/activity levels, even our sleep habits can affect our weight loss.

I may not have gotten this far, if I hadn't accidentally lost weight after sleep apnea treatment. My doctors told me I'd probably lose some weight without even trying, just from getting better sleep. That sounded like nonsense to me, because I'd never in my life "accidentally" lost weight, but sure enough I lost 20 lbs without even trying over the course of about 6 to 8 months.

This was at a time in my life when I had given up on weight loss. I had decided that dieting had only ever resulted in me being fatter than ever before, so I was very hesitant to get back on the diet rollercoaster.

Instead of getting back on the diet rollercoaster by drastically cutting calories, I decided to focus on "not gaining... and while I was at it trying to lose maybe just one more pound." This gradual change has resulted in slow progress, but progress that's lasted longer and acheived more than any of my previous thousands of attempts over more than three decades.

I'm still experimenting, and I'm still constantly amazed at the sometimes surprising and completely unexpected results.

I try to be unbiased and logical in my assumptions, though I'm sure I've reached some false conclusions. I can't do double-blind, randomized research on myself - so what I'm doing isn't science, but the science doesn't have a lot to offer me yet (not that I haven't learned a great deal from the existing scientific research - it just isn't yet able to explain why I've experienced what I have). Until science catches up, and can predict weight loss success better, most of us are just going to have to continue to experiment on ourselves, and try to be scientist and lab rat.

It isn't "good science" but sometimes it's all you've got.

I don't assert it is a made up thing at all, just that its overuse as an answer to anyone whose weight loss has stalled for even mere days, is just not the case for every single person all the time as it is so often said to be (especially on the site I talked about in my OP). We probably do agree, just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.

Does anyone watch "Survivor?" It's only 39 days and those folks all lose weight like they were on the Biggest Loser. Even the ones who are very fit to begin with. That is certainly a situation where "starvation mode" would come into play if it were a valid principle of weight loss. People want to believe there is a reason they can control when their weight loss doesn't happen they way they want or expect it to. Would we all go into starvation mode the day before surgery or a colonoscopy? NO, we don't!

In my case, I never plateaued in 8 1/2 months. I never did much in the way of mixing it up with how many calories I ate per day. I hit the classes at the gym in the same order pretty much every week. There was very little variety to what I did. Many might suggest that I would not have been successful because I didn't calorie cycle and I didn't change up my workouts. But that wasn't my experience. I agree wholeheartedly that unless there are medical reasons, eating fewer calories and exercising more will result in weight loss. I'll even go so far as to say it will result in significant and steady weight loss.

Slowed metabolism, starvation mode, all these concepts just add to the confusion and we allow it because we want there to be a reason if our weight loss slows or is not what we expected. If skipping breakfast slowed one's metabolism significantly, I would have been overweight as a teen. I NEVER ate breakfast when I was in my teens. No reason other than I was usually running late for school. I didn't starve before lunch, and my weight held steady all through those years. I started gaining when I started eating anything and everything with wild abandon. period.

Lin

Ah yes... the old "Starvation Mode" threat! It's a hot topic and brought up umpteen times per week on the Weight Watcher boards where I frequent... and <<yawn>> has really grown to bore me!!

First of all... if the threat that so many lay claim to behind the "starvation mode" myth was real, (that being that if you eat less than "X" amount of calories, your body will STOP losing weight, and that you MUST eat to lose weight!) then can someone please tell me... how could anorexics get so thin??

Additionally, how could anyone starve to death?? I mean... according to their theory, the body should just magically STOP this from happening, right? :-)

Hmmm... and what about the individuals who undergo gastric bypass surgery, and then consume only 700 to 900 calories per day, yet still manage to lose weight??

This one, like many myths produce more FEAR than anything... and we all know that most times, FEAR is simply-

False
Evidence
Appearing
Real

I don't know about "starvation mode", but I do know that when I eat regularly at my BMR, I am a much happier camper. I don't know how any one can sustain a calerie rate below their BMR with out being a tired hungry grouch.

Good to know, John. Thank you.

Change that single word from fat to weight and I would agree with you.

There is a big difference between fat and weight loss.

I don't eat breakfast. I'm starving all day if I eat breakfast, so I usually just have my coffee, then I eat around noon. Plus I take thyroid medicine in the morning, and I want it to be fully in my system before I eat. I feel like 30-45 minutes isn't enough.