Starvation mode

Some of you might find this interesting...

In a study that was done 25 obese subjects were picked to eat in extreme deficit and kept in a hospital to monitor their reports. Some left early, their stay ranged from 8 days to 85 depending on how long the subjects could take being in the starvation mode and in stay at the hospital. All could live at free will at anytime. Obviously the weight loss results of those who stayed the longest were high. The important aspect though was they continued to follow up on the subjects after they left. Had meetings of support, phones call and even therapy visits for those who wanted them. They kept up with their weight and overall emotional state. Over the course of the time some people dropped out of the program. In the end they charted and monitored the follow up weight of 23 of the 25 subjects. Here is the chart for that follow up. Noticed that at least 10 subjects regained not only weight loss but more. Almost all regained at least the weight they lost, the only numbers that are kept low are also subjects with very short follow up or phone follow up where contact was then cut off.



Something to think about.
 
Did you not read my last post?

How else do i break a plateau?
 
Some of you might find this interesting...

In a study that was done 25 obese subjects were picked to eat in extreme deficit and kept in a hospital to monitor their reports. Some left early, their stay ranged from 8 days to 85 depending on how long the subjects could take being in the starvation mode and in stay at the hospital. All could live at free will at anytime. Obviously the weight loss results of those who stayed the longest were high. The important aspect though was they continued to follow up on the subjects after they left. Had meetings of support, phones call and even therapy visits for those who wanted them. They kept up with their weight and overall emotional state. Over the course of the time some people dropped out of the program. In the end they charted and monitored the follow up weight of 23 of the 25 subjects. Here is the chart for that follow up. Noticed that at least 10 subjects regained not only weight loss but more. Almost all regained at least the weight they lost, the only numbers that are kept low are also subjects with very short follow up or phone follow up where contact was then cut off.



Something to think about.

Leigh, thanks for adding. Though I don't like the parameters of the study, it adds to what I am saying here.
 
How else do i break a plateau?

Let's think about this logically, OK?

Your maintenance caloric intake is the supposed point where your energy in = energy out. Put differently, what you are eating equals what you are expending through a basic days worth of living.

This level, assuming no metabolic disruptions have occurred naturally or through YOU tampering with your energy intake drastically, is roughly 15 calories per pound of body weight.

You start your weight loss journey by starting with a 15% reduction off of maintenance caloric intake. You weight starts to drop. As your weight drops, so does your metabolic rate. No ways around it. At this point, you could cut calories again to trigger another deficit based off of your NEW maintenance level. At some point though, you can't keep slashing calories. If you do, the weight loss will eventually stall. If it doesn't, it is going to leave you with a VERY inefficient metabolism. This is why people gain their weight back, like in the study Leigh linked to above.

If you have already triggered the stall, it is time to up your cals to reverse the physiological survival mechanisms you triggered. I have written numerous times on this subject in this forum. I most recently made a lengthy post in my journal. I suggest you take the time to read through it.
 
Leigh, thanks for adding. Though I don't like the parameters of the study, it adds to what I am saying here.

Yeah I mean do I think the study is top notch, no. For the 60's and information available at the time it was pretty good. I think the big point it shows is not so much physically but psychologically what the effects of a low caloric diet can bring forth and reaction to extreme events and food restriction.

In the same aspect just the 1 minnesota study doesn't live me fully satisfied with an answer on things either from all the research I have seen with anorexic patients. Regardless though it all comes down to that healthy medium of it being fast enough to encourage but safe enough to withstand.

You got it down pretty good here as always though Steve. :)
 
Yeah I mean do I think the study is top notch, no. For the 60's and information available at the time it was pretty good. I think the big point it shows is not so much physically but psychologically what the effects of a low caloric diet can bring forth and reaction to extreme events and food restriction.

In the same aspect just the 1 minnesota study doesn't live me fully satisfied with an answer on things either from all the research I have seen with anorexic patients. Regardless though it all comes down to that healthy medium of it being fast enough to encourage but safe enough to withstand.

You got it down pretty good here as always though Steve. :)

Really, you would have trouble showing me ANY study that left me "happy." They just don't exist as they apply to the situations we encounter as trainers. We must deduce and extrapolate so many "what ifs" based on the parameters that all most all studies use. The Minnesota Study is the most controlled study in terms of starvation out there, unless you can prove me otherwise. If you could, I would be happy btw. ;) Does it reflect real world data in a manner that pleases me? Not necessarily.
 
Noticed that at least 10 subjects regained not only weight loss but more. Almost all regained at least the weight they lost, the only numbers that are kept low are also subjects with very short follow up or phone follow up where contact was then cut off.



Something to think about.
the problem with these studies are the fact that they fail to take into account the mental state of the patients.
did they WANT to loose weight? did they leave and go out and binge from being deprived so long? or did they leave and eat a sensible diet and their metabolism was screwed up?

I mean they had to eat badly to get fat in the first place - my theory is that they just went back into old habits rather than it was a metabolsm thing.

The mental aspect of any diet is the major challenge for most people. Getting to a goal weight can be done but being able to maintain it is another story altogether.

They need more info in that study for it really be be any sort of effective argument or valid point.
 
Just a question for the informed . How long does starvation mode last ? I think that this phase is overblown. If this mode were true wouldn't people that suffer from anorexia be rare ? The body will feed on itself eventually, I'm just wondering how long before it makes a breakthru from the Starvation phase to weight reduction.
 
Your body won't just feed on its own fat...it'll feed on its own muscle, tissue, and eventually its organs.
 
I would not compare yourself to an extreme such as an anorexic. What is the point when your journey is geared toward being healthy as well as thin, while an anorexics is geared toward being thin and beyond ill. Bodies adapt and change as you force it too. Hence, cut calories, you lose weight. However, there is a lot of other things going on behind the scenes that you are not familiar with, most likely. Same goes for anorexia. The body adapts.

The starvation response is a very real phenomenon. Many people think it works like a switch, turning on and off at will.... but it is a very scientific and deep subject.

Most of it has to do with your endocrine system, i.e. hormones.

One of the major drivers of the starvation response mechanism is a hormone called leptin. This hormone is released by your fat cells telling your body if you are starving and if you have adequate storage of energy (fat).

I always say that people with a large excess of fat can handle larger caloric deficits. There is a reason for this. Most professionals will spout off about how large deficits are not good for anyone because you will trigger starvation response.

Well here is my take on it:

The only reason I am NOT a fan of huge deficits for very big people is simple. It is not a healthy way of eating that leads to long term results. Losing a lot of weight takes time and consistent adherence. If you starve someone by cutting their calories in half, from what they are used to eating.... chances are, this individual is going to hate it. Chances are, this individual is going to treat this as a diet. A diet being a temporary way of eating that leads to temporary results. Who wants that? Chances are, this person is going to dislike it so much that they fall off the wagon before ever realizing their goals. Sure, they may try again a few times. Heck, they may even keep trying with the same huge calorie cuts for the rest of their lives. But based on empirical evidence, most won't last long enough at any one try to maintain any lasting results.

So in a way, most of the trainers spouting off about how easily the starvation response is triggered are actually doing some good. But not because they are helping people avoid starvation. Rather, they are helping to promote long term adherence and good lifestyle habits. And this is what matters.

This said though, when you have a lot of excess fat, the starvation response mechanism is not so easily triggered. When you have plenty of fat, you have plenty of leptin, and this tells your body that you are in no danger of starving. As fat is lost, leptin goes down, and vice versa.

There are a lot of people on here who have a lot of weight to lose, but seem to plateau. 9/10 times, as much as I hate to sound rude, this occurs due to poor adherence. Every now and again, I have seen someone with plenty of fat, eating perfectly calorically, and still unable to lose weight. However, this is few and far between. In most cases, they eat great most of the time. But they have lapses where they binge a little here and there, or they have lapses in their exercise regimen, and these things add up to create long term energy maintenance, meaning no weight loss or gain. You have to think about this on a larger continuum, not just by the day. Sure, you were in a calorie deficit today. Good for you. But what were you for the month? What were you for the past 6 months? Hell, what were you for the year? This is what matters, and this IMO, based on empirical evidence, is why MOST big people plateau. Not because they are in starvation mode.

So think of leptin as the mechanism that alerts your body that starvation is a possibility in the near future. It will changes some of the physiological processes of your body systems that regulate metabolism.

One of the responses, and this is a kicker, is that as leptin levels fall with fat levels, appetite tends to go up. It is your bodies natural way of saying, hey dumb-dumb... eat some food so you don't starve. Of course, you are not starving in reality, but wind the hands of time back a couple of million of years ago and you damn well better believe that starving to death was a possibility. Our bodies evolved to fend off starvation for as long as possible, and these evolutionary changes we still carry today.

As you all get skinnier, and for those of you who are starting out with not all that much weight to lose, you don't have a lot of room to wiggle in terms of leptin levels and its response. This means you have to find more ways to trick your body into thinking you are not starving. I think "refeeds" has been mentioned on here before. Or zig-zag dieting? These techniques were born out of the need to trick your body into letting you lose more weight when you don't have all that much to lose in the first place.

Again, these are not things you really have to worry about when you have a lot of weight to lose though.

I think this is an interesting topic and I would love for some "pros" to kick in their thoughts on the subject of leptin, starvation, and obesity.
 
Hey Steve , Thanks for the response. i think that this topic is facinating. I have know people that stopped eating because of depression that have lost weight. I have read you in other treads state that weight loss is energy transfer based on fewer calories coming in than going out. That is what we all try to do. But whether it's healthy or not your body has to respond to the calorie deficit. Sick people lose weight and the "starvation" theory doesn't hold up.
 
Hey Steve , Thanks for the response. i think that this topic is facinating. I have know people that stopped eating because of depression that have lost weight. I have read you in other treads state that weight loss is energy transfer based on fewer calories coming in than going out. That is what we all try to do. But whether it's healthy or not your body has to respond to the calorie deficit. Sick people lose weight and the "starvation" theory doesn't hold up.

It is not a theory. It is scientific fact. The starvation mode is very real. It is more about getting lean than it is about getting thin. ;)

You are right, a deficit will always lead to tissue loss, even if it is in extremely small scales.
 
I watched this TV series at the weekend, based on a reconstruction of the race for the South Pole between Scott and Amundsen. During the reconstruction, the Norwegian team easily won again - due to better planning, good nutrition, but overwhelmingly by their use of dogs (the original expedition killed dogs along the way, to supply meat to the surviving dogs, and to the humans).

The British team reconstructed Scotts technique, of using humans alone to haul sleds. Teams of 4 to 5 explorers hauled heavy sleds. These sleds sometimes had to be hauled through soft snow. The producer pulled the plug on the British team on the return trip, as they were in danger of repeating Scott and his team's fate.

The point was that these men had worked tremendously hard every day - hard physical labour, and had consumed only about 3 or 4,000 calories per day - mainly from dried meat with some fat added. When the last team members were pulled from the experiment their bodies were decimated. All of the hard work every day, and they had lost an average of almost 20% of their body weights. But the surprise was, that they had lost a lot of that body weight from lean body mass. They didn't look well or fit - they looked ill.
 
Last edited:
I never suggested that a person should starve themselfs as a healthy form of weight loss. What i opine is that Excercising with calorie control will always result in weight loss. I watch the TV show "Survivor" and you always see them eating in starvation mode . Yet they usually look cut and /or lean. What many perceive as too few calories coupled with excercise , should still result in a form of fitness.
 
I have been here for quite a while and thought I had a program that worked for me. I am 24, 5'8" and currently 178 lbs. I have been eating 1200-1300 calories a day with an occasional (about weekly) "cheat" day where I go to about 2000-2500 calories. I work out 6 days a week for 30-60 minutes a day, both cardio and resistance training

But now I've been at about the same weight for a month or so (up and down a bit). I was reading another post Steve left on RJ's journal that people plateau because they don't know what they're eating or they've been chronically under eating.

Would I count as under eating? The cheat day would level me out, wouldn't it?

If I am under eating and if that is a cause of my plateau, how do I fix it? Start eating 1800 calories a day and wait for my body to figure it out? Or do I eat at maintenance for a week or two until I am stabilized again?
 
The post that you are referencing of mine was concerning calorie calculators, not starvation mode.

I find it hard to believe that you are eating 7ish calories per pound of body weight and still not losing weight. Are you sure you are calculating your cheats correctly?

The adaptive response of our bodies that people call "starvation mode" is triggered, primarily, by hormones. It is not something people with a lot of excess fat have to worry about as much.

The "starvation mode" really effects people who are already lean, and trying to get leaner. Not that some metabolic slowdown doesn't happen with any size of person, but eating as few calories as you are should definitely be leading to some weight loss.

Have you thought about seeing a doc, get the old thyroid checked out?

Are you lifting weight? Are you taking measurements?
 
Thanks Steve-

I'm absolutely sure about the cheat days - I log everything. However - I think I may have nailed the problem just now.

I am saying that I'm staying "about the same weight" because right now I am the same as I was about a month ago. However, I think my problems are mostly of the feminine cycle nature. My body has been really messed up the last few months so I can never tell if I'm holding on to water or not. Turns out, right now I am.

I'll keep doing about what I'm doing now and report back in a month if it doesn't kick in
 
Yes, exercises + calories control=weight loss.Calories control makes the body use its own fat resources and exercises prevent muscle tissue loss.So ,it's the perfect combination!
 
I have a question. The Jews in the concentration camps were fed approximately (everyone from what I gather that was doing specific labor in the field), 1200 to 1500 calories per day on average. The ones that were not laboring in the field, (basically in door type of work), we given 800c per day, and they too, became mere bones after time. Interesting how the starvation mode may have worked in this environment).

There may be some exceptions here (not being fed for example), and they were virtually bones. Be interesting to learn how the starvation response and adaptive system of the body reacted in this environment. What do you think, Steve? If there was an affect, it may not have lasted long, and pushed to a no choice point?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top