Starvation mode or eating at maintenence?

[MagicDrumSticks]

I currently eat 1600 or so cals a day. Satas on left. Every calculator I've used pretty much says my maintence is like 2500 cals or so, so apparently I'm eating 900 cals below maintainence. Could this be the reason I've stopped dropping weight?


It seems WAY too high

[bodydropcris]

i like dropping weight fast, so im usually going 1.5-2 lbs a week until i get to like 180... starvation mode is a myth, how would your body function if it wasnt burning fat and you werent eating enough to supply?

[snorkelman]

starvation mode is a myth

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Post any research/studies supporting this position or else we must conclude that the above statement is your opinion.

[MrRR]

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Post any research/studies supporting this position or else we must conclude that the above statement is your opinion.

It IS a myth as most people here understand it. You're bmr drops, but never enough to come close to stalling you're progress, and thats on a diet that is extremely low on calories in people who are already at a healthy body fat. Lower than 99 percent of what people here eat yet I constantly see "you're in starvation mode" being thrown out there for a 160 pound guy eating 1500-1600 calories. As long as you get adequate protein muscle loss is compartively minimal as well.
uve
Burgess, NS. Effect of a very-low-calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.

Look it up and read this, it has takes a good look at the minnesota starvation study that is the basis for a lot of this "starvation mode" hysteria.
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/...tion-mode.html

[dfast]

I currently eat 1600 or so cals a day. Satas on left. Every calculator I've used pretty much says my maintence is like 2500 cals or so, so apparently I'm eating 900 cals below maintainence. Could this be the reason I've stopped dropping weight?


It seems WAY too high

As a fellow shortass, I know what you mean about 2,500 calories seeming like it's quite high. I maintain on around 2,300 (with adequate exercise) and cut (slowly) at around 1,800 - 1,900 calories. I have, however, gone as low as 1,100 calories for periods of two or three weeks at a time (keeping protein high and limiting carbs and fats). I lost fat rather quickly whilst holding onto most of my muscle mass (it was essentially a PSMF I guess). 1,600 calories isn't too low, but you could trying bumping that up to 1,800 for a few weeks to see how things go. Just keep an eye on your BF% and how things look in the mirror.

[snorkelman]

It IS a myth as most people here understand it.

I think that you and I may not be in total disagreement. I took a look at your study and the link you provided and I figured that I'd post this quote from Lyle McDonald that discusses the topic.

Q. Some claim that that your body will go into 'starvation mode' if you eat too few calories, preventing you from losing weight and that trying to lose weight by eating fewer calories doesn't work. What do you think?

A. Well there is no doubt that the body slows metabolic rate when you reduce calories or lose weight/fat. There are at least two mechanisms for this.

One is simply the loss in body mass. A smaller body burns fewer calories at rest and during activity. There's not much you can do about that except maybe wear a weighted vest to offset the weight loss, this would help you burn more calories during activity.

However, there's an additional effect sometimes referred to as the adaptive component of metabolic rate. Roughly, that means that your metabolic rate has dropped more than predicted by the change in weight.

So if the change in body mass predicts a drop in metabolic rate of 100 calories and the measured drop is 150 calories, the extra 50 is the adaptive component. The mechanisms behind the drop are complex involving changes in leptin, thyroid, insulin and nervous system output (this system is discussed to some degree in all of my books except my first one).

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

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.

In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study), men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I've ever seen, something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.

Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never, to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss.

This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I suspect that the people who say, "I'm eating 800 calories per day and not losing weight; it must be a starvation response" are actually eating far more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study that I'm aware of has ever found such an occurrence.

So I think the starvation response (a drop in metabolic rate) is certainly real but somewhat overblown. At the same time, I have often seen things like re-feeds or even taking a week off a diet do some interesting things when people are stalled. One big problem is that, quite often, weekly weight or fat loss is simply obscured by the error margin in our measurements.

Losing between 0.5 and 1 pound of fat per week won't show up on the scale or calipers unless someone is very lean, and changes in water weight, etc. can easily obscure that. Women are far more sensitive to this. Their weight can swing drastically across a month's span depending on their menstrual cycle.

Thing is this, at the end of the day, to lose weight or fat, you have to create a caloric deficit, there's no magical way to make it happen without affecting energy balance. You either have to reduce food intake, increase activity, or a combination of both.

[nano.ix]

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 NOT what starvation mode parrots squak out. Starvation mode as brolosophers take it is a caloric intake so low that you do not loose any weight. Which is wrong. VLC diets will only lead to a slight reduction in BMR.

So the true definition of SM should be "VLC that leads to a slight drop in BMR". Either way it is still not a good option since you will loose a signifigant amount of muscle along the way.


1.5-2lbs a week is fine for minimal muscle loss (granted you have adequate protein intake which i asure everyone here does)

[MaximusJuris]

I currently eat 1600 or so cals a day. Satas on left. Every calculator I've used pretty much says my maintence is like 2500 cals or so, so apparently I'm eating 900 cals below maintainence. Could this be the reason I've stopped dropping weight?


It seems WAY too high

What kind of exercise/workout are you doing? Every calculator I stuck your stats into put your BMR at 1600, that's before working out.

I'm cutting at 1700 right now, stats close to yours, just more lean body mass, and losing ~1lb a week. How well are you tracking your calories? 1600 cals should be pretty close, unless you're just eating more than you realize.

[gse123]

As a fellow shortass, I know what you mean about 2,500 calories seeming like it's quite high. I maintain on around 2,300 (with adequate exercise) and cut (slowly) at around 1,800 - 1,900 calories. I have, however, gone as low as 1,100 calories for periods of two or three weeks at a time (keeping protein high and limiting carbs and fats). I lost fat rather quickly whilst holding onto most of my muscle mass (it was essentially a PSMF I guess). 1,600 calories isn't too low, but you could trying bumping that up to 1,800 for a few weeks to see how things go. Just keep an eye on your BF% and how things look in the mirror.

I agree. I am very short (5'4) and my maintenance is about the same as yours.. maybe slightly less. I barely lose 1lb a week on 1800 cals, so It is annoying when I tell people i'm cutting on 1600 (or even less) calories a day get told its way too low, and it will send me into starvation mode etc... without taking into consideration my weight and height.

[Robby Coker]

This is NOT what starvation mode parrots squak out. Starvation mode as brolosophers take it is a caloric intake so low that you do not loose any weight. Which is wrong. VLC diets will only lead to a slight reduction in BMR.

So the true definition of SM should be "VLC that leads to a slight drop in BMR". Either way it is still not a good option since you will loose a signifigant amount of muscle along the way.


1.5-2lbs a week is fine for minimal muscle loss (granted you have adequate protein intake which i asure everyone here does)

It IS a myth as most people here understand it. You're bmr drops, but never enough to come close to stalling you're progress, and thats on a diet that is extremely low on calories in people who are already at a healthy body fat. Lower than 99 percent of what people here eat yet I constantly see "you're in starvation mode" being thrown out there for a 160 pound guy eating 1500-1600 calories. As long as you get adequate protein muscle loss is compartively minimal as well.
uve
Burgess, NS. Effect of a very-low-calorie diet on body composition and resting metabolic rate in obese men and women. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991 Apr;91(4):430-4.

Look it up and read this, it has takes a good look at the minnesota starvation study that is the basis for a lot of this "starvation mode" hysteria.
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/...tion-mode.html

Yes. Your metabolism does drop in response to cutting down on Calories from your maintenance level. As you said, though, it is never enough to stall weight loss altogether.

With any starvation response, to continue losing at your desired rate (e.g. 1.5 lbs/week, 2 lbs/week), you have to cut your Calories down lower to offset this response so you can sustain the required deficit.

As you get to lower body fat percentages, however, you tend to enter starvation mode more readily in response to Calorie deficits, and your metabolism also might drop more sharply after some time. This is one reason why more frequent refeeds are recommended when cutting down to single digit body fat percentages.

[bodydropcris]

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Post any research/studies supporting this position or else we must conclude that the above statement is your opinion.

funny, i was going to quote lyle mcdonald (one of my favorite nutrition authors, since he is more for sports than bodybuilding).. but you did to try to prove me wrong! as you will read what you quoted, it only slows down slightly, just because of your metabolism slowing down, which it will do anyways with any calorie deficit...

[snorkelman]

but you did to try to prove me wrong!

It all depends on how you define "starvation mode." Clearly MrRR and I view it one way...and it seems like you view it the same way as us. However, this is not the same way that many people on this website view it. Had you posted the quote from Lyle first, I would have agreed with you from the get go

[MagicDrumSticks]

1600 is fine for your stats for cutting. You say you are no longer dropping weight, how long have you been eating at 1600? Are you weighing and tracking everything?? If not, my guess is you are eating more than you think.



Just thought Id point this out....just because you are dropping more weight per week does not mean its all fat. Personally, I think its better to start closer to maintenance and then decrease your cals slowly and as necessary until you reach your goal, it might take a little longer, but you end up preserving more muscle.

I did when I first started, but believe me between a job, summer school and internships, it becomes quite difficult to track it all. Maybe once I get an iPhone in Jan (Finally) I can get some sort of tracking proggy. But even then it should be very close to 1600 because it pretty much consists of the same food I ate everyday when I DID track, and it was spot on 1600 then.

I do cardio 2 times a week, and weight train 4 times a week. Maybe I should bump up the cardio? IDK I hate doing it and thought that weight training would be enough.

As a fellow shortass, I know what you mean about 2,500 calories seeming like it's quite high. I maintain on around 2,300 (with adequate exercise) and cut (slowly) at around 1,800 - 1,900 calories. I have, however, gone as low as 1,100 calories for periods of two or three weeks at a time (keeping protein high and limiting carbs and fats). I lost fat rather quickly whilst holding onto most of my muscle mass (it was essentially a PSMF I guess). 1,600 calories isn't too low, but you could trying bumping that up to 1,800 for a few weeks to see how things go. Just keep an eye on your BF% and how things look in the mirror.

lol @ fellow shortass. Yeah finally someone that is thinking the EXACT same thing I was. Hey I have another question for you, how much do u intake when you bulk? People here tell me 3000 and that is just way too high, it seems that users on this site like to throw around big numbers like it's some sort of discovery channel show :]

What kind of exercise/workout are you doing? Every calculator I stuck your stats into put your BMR at 1600, that's before working out.

I'm cutting at 1700 right now, stats close to yours, just more lean body mass, and losing ~1lb a week. How well are you tracking your calories? 1600 cals should be pretty close, unless you're just eating more than you realize.

Read my first response above. Also, same question for you, how many cals are u taking in to bulk? It's hard to find other's that are as small as me to compare to.

[MaximusJuris]

I did when I first started, but believe me between a job, summer school and internships, it becomes quite difficult to track it all.

I do cardio 2 times a week, and weight train 4 times a week. Maybe I should bump up the cardio? IDK I hate doing it and thought that weight training would be enough.

Read my first response above. Also, same question for you, how many cals are u taking in to bulk? It's hard to find other's that are as small as me to compare to.

To the first part: that's why you aren't losing weight man. You just aren't tracking it well enough and most likely overdoing it. The cardio+weight training should be plenty for you at 1600-1700 calories.

My maintenance is around 2200-2300. I bulk at 2600-2700.