The main issue I have with it, is that suggesting the body can go into starvation mode is like throwing gasoline on a match to someone who is trying to diet.

The implication that if you do not eat enough will somehow slow weight loss is not the sort of incentive overweight people need.

It is my opinion that the body can certainly suffer when it does not receive adequate food for a long period of time, and that can include an impact on metabolism. But it is not reasonable, IMO, to think that eating more calories will result in overall weight loss.

Yes, I agree, and the day I see a 280lb guy at the doctors because he is starving or even slightly malnourished is the day I will sit up and take notice of starvation mode.

You can be 280 lbs and still be malnourished. Malnourishment is simple a state of not getting adequate nutrition from an unbalanced diet. You can eat all the calories, but if you are eating only Pop Tarts, you will be very deficient in other nutrients that your body requires. And lots of people of varying sizes are at the doctor's office for that every day.

Originally Posted by SnowPetal:
Arctic Mama, what you are describing is vitamin deficiencies and possibly hormonal problems not starvation mode. The body does not start to eat into it's own tissues until for women bodyfat is 10% or less and for men 5% or less. This was scientifically proven in a 10yr military study. It is physically impossible for someone to go into this mode when they have more fat than this.

The cascade leading to actual tissue catabolizing begins that way. And as I said, it is almost impossible to voluntarily manage it long enough to get to the point of real problems - the endocrine system responds long before that.

The one thing we have not yet mentioned is that there has been shown to be very rapid weight gain for those on very low calory diets that then break them e.g. crash/yo-yo diets. So what about the psychological aspects as well as the physical ones?

Originally Posted by IanG:
Yes, I agree, and the day I see a 280lb guy at the doctors because he is starving or even slightly malnourished is the day I will sit up and take notice of starvation mode.

Well, have you looked at a 280 pound gastric surgery patient who is weight reduced from 450? I wouldn't say such a thing is never seen, especially in a patient whose body didn't tolerate the surgery well. They lost the weight, but a fair bit of lean mass, bone density, and permanently damaged their dopamine feedback in the process. Then they've plateaud on extremely low calories as a long term adaptation to their restriction, exacerbated by the now-permanent malabsorption they may be experienced. And depending on what type of gastric surgery they had, their hormonal signaling in their gut may be permanently wonky, too, and this affects much energy regulation elsewhere in the system.

It's not extremely common, but I'd hazard it's in the 10-15% range. Arguably these folks would be more prone to metabolic issues on a normal, more gradual diet as well.

Originally Posted by IanG:
The main issue I have with it, is that suggesting the body can go into starvation mode is like throwing gasoline on a match to someone who is trying to diet.

The implication that if you do not eat enough will somehow slow weight loss is not the sort of incentive overweight people need.

I say gently - anyone who is using such a thing as an excuse to not maintain even a modest calorie deficit has no business attempting weight loss, anyway. They're not ready to do the mental (let alone physical!) work necessary to healthfully manage their bodies long term, if they're bouncing between deep calorie deficits and bingeing as a matter of course.

Originally Posted by time2lose:
I don't think that starvation mode is BS. My doctor says that it is a matter of genetics. There are some people whose metabolism will slow drastically when the caloric intake drops very low enabling them to live longer on small amounts of food.

Your doctor is wrong. Your body cannot dramatically slow down it's use of energy. This would mean your heart rate and other essential body functions would slow down dramatically. Simply doesn't happen, regardless of genetics.

Originally Posted by SnowPetal:
Arctic Mama, what you are describing is vitamin deficiencies and possibly hormonal problems not starvation mode. The body does not start to eat into it's own tissues until for women bodyfat is 10% or less and for men 5% or less. This was scientifically proven in a 10yr military study. It is physically impossible for someone to go into this mode when they have more fat than this.

With respect, "scientifically proven" is an oxymoron. Science only disproves, it doesn't prove anything. Regardless, I would like to see this study you're referencing so please provide a link. Bottom line is that the body does catoblize itself way before the body fat levels you're suggesting. Muscle loss is very common when dieting.

re:
 

Ah the starvation mode question.

Here's my take based on my experiences...

There's two types of "starvation modes" that are generally discussed.

One type is when we discuss what happens to the body when people stop eating all together. Those are usually scientific discussions about how long it takes people to die or completely break down. Usually those discussions surround people who aren't choosing to stop eating but forced to.

The other type of "starvation mode" is the idea that is talked about on weight loss forums like this one. It's generally that people want to know "well if i eat 800 calories a day, is my weight loss going to stop?" The answer to that for most people is no, it won't stop. It will slow down, not necessarily because of the 800 calories, but because your body is becoming used to 800 calories. Weight loss slows down just as easily at 1800 as it does 800.

When I think of starvation mode, It's a matter of perspective.

Those of us with access to food, will most likely never suffer from this. However, we can suffer from malnutrition, due to poor food choices.

For the unfortunate, who are stuck, with little or no food, it's different. I do think that the body will do all it can to hang on to muscle, and many other functions, and lose fat, etc. before it begins to turn to, basically self cannibalism to survive.

There fore, most of us here, will never have to worry about it.

For people in other places, with primitive practices, and lack of education and still suffering from civil wars, drought, and famine, etc. it's a different ball game.

Originally Posted by forkeeps:
I won't argue that starvation mode is BS, especially since most of you are far more well read about these things. But when I was doing a fairly low calorie (yet well balanced and supervised) diet of about 1,000 calories, I was losing about 1-3 pounds weekly without exercise. I then started exercising regularly, and my weight loss completely stalled, for weeks. I dropped the exercise and started losing again.

I always called it starvation mode because that was my understanding of what happened (not enough calories to sustain the activity level). So if not that, then what?

My body did the exact same thing, I was on a low calorie plan and was losing great..but as soon as I started exercising I hit a plateau..no pounds or inches off..Ive since stopped exercising due to a knee injury and have again lost weight :?: *confused* lol

Originally Posted by whos that girl:
My body did the exact same thing, I was on a low calorie plan and was losing great..but as soon as I started exercising I hit a plateau..no pounds or inches off..Ive since stopped exercising due to a knee injury and have again lost weight :?: *confused* lol

My understanding is that when you are exercising, your body holds onto more water. When you stop exercising, your muscles release that water. So the weight gain/inability to lose when exercising is just water, not fat. Once you maintain an exercise routine for a certain length of time you will see the scale move again.

Calling it "starvation mode" get people all wound up and into arguments. However, I think it's fair to say that eating extremely low calories ever long periods of time is not good for you and can seriously eff up your body....

Very great, interesting thread. I was struggling with this concept when counting my calories yesterday, wondering if the 4 calories over 1200 I ate would make a difference, if that's why I wasnt losing... Ugh. This is so hard. I wish there was just a definitive answer to this question.