Starvation mode

[Steve]

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?

The physiological survival mechanisms that kick in, in response to starvation or even dieting do not STOP weight loss completely. I mean, they can, given enough food is being eaten. One outcome of the starvation response is a reduction in metabolic output. So, if your metabolism slows, yet, you are still eating *enough* food, you are essentially creating a new, lower maintenance level where no weight will be lost or gained.

This is the classical occurrence we see in most people who slash calories too hard. Especially with people who don't have too much weight to lose, relatively speaking.

During intense starvation, however, the metabolism never shuts down. You'd die first. Even in the Nazi camps, it is speculated that the largest slowdowns were roughly 30% from base. This means, if the metabolism slows by 30%, yet you are eating next to nothing, you would still lose weight. Sure, it is far beyond unhealthy and no way to *diet* but when forced to, the body will still survive.

Again, people think the starvation mode shuts down your metabolic systems. It doesn't.

You might want to check out the Minnesota Starvation Experiment.

 

[Vitality!]

Thanks for the response. I will take a look at that. This is sort of an interesting topic to learn a bit about.

 

[Steve]

Interesting and very complex. You aren't going to learn too much about it reading traditional books.

 

[Vitality!]

I understand your point, however, research and study on it, wont hurt me or anyone none. I just want the general complexity of understanding without getting far to invloved in the complexity of the subject matter.

 

[Steve]

I understand your point, however, research and study on it, wont hurt me or anyone none.

Haha, why you felt the need to say this.... I have no idea.

Reading, research, and study is good for anyone IMO. I was simply saying traditional books won't offer much insight into the subject matter. If you want to investigate it deeper, you are going to have to turn more toward research papers and texts.

 

[Vitality!]

I know you know that Steve. I have learned to respect your opinion on things.

Do you have any links for some online research or other you recommend. I find this topic rather interesting.

 

[Steve]

Hmmm, you can start with this article. As I said before, it is a very in depth subject, and relatively new in terms of how long we've known about it. And leptin is only one facet of adaptations that occur while dieting. A major one at that though.

Have fun.

 

[Vitality!]

Thank you , Steve. I will read this after my Chest/Squat training this morning. When reading, I am in the hopes my mind wont explode or ooze out my ears..........

 

[Steve]

Thank you , Steve. I will read this after my Chest/Squat training this morning. When reading, I am in the hopes my mind wont explode or ooze out my ears..........

LOL, if that happens, I hope they don't trace this back to me!!

 

[illusionist]

You are not healthy at 600 calories per day. That is unsafe and very unhealthy. Increase your calorie intake. You may gain a few pounds while you do so, but once your body is stable at a good calorie intake, then focus on losing the weight. Work out more. Cardio won't necessarily make you lose weight. Cardio is important, but if you really want to lose weight, convert fat to muscle. It will help your metabolism and muscle burns fat. That being said, don't weight lift daily. Your muscles will grow during downtime, not during the exercise. So if you do some crunches, skip a day before you do it again. i.e. on Monday: do some crunches, pushups, etc. on Tuesday: run or walk or other cardio activity; on Wednesday: do crunches, pushups, etc.. and so on..

The first thing you have to do is eat right, and that means not eating less than 1500 calories. Get yourself to a normal diet first. Don't be afraid to gain weight during the process. It may seem counterintuitive, but your first goal is to be healthy, not die. Sure you could weigh less, but at what cost? It could just mean that you weigh less in a coffin.

Don't starve yourself. Start eating. It's a myth for the idea of always cutting calories to lose weight. You already acknowledge that your body is in starvation mode. The best way to lose weight is to keep your metabolism active. Eat even when you aren't hungry. Eat 5 - 6 small meals per day, it will help your metabolism stay active and always burning fat. Eat enough to feel full, but not stuffed.

But please, PLEASE, if you were to get anything out of this post is to START EATING!

 

[Steve]

To answer your question, your metabolism will up-regulate and elevate your maintenance level. However, some weight gain can and probably should be expected. It's the necessary short-term evil for long term success. And hopefully you learned your lesson. The number lowering on the scale is not the answer to looking better.

I'd recommend getting back up toward your supposed maintenance, which should be at around 15-1600 cals.

Once you get up that high, start dieting with sane measures. Sane being the key word!!!!!!

And start weight lifting. You say you want to look good, yet you are doing nothing to maintain or even build some muscle.

 

[cokezero1]

You seem to be at exactly 20 bmi...which is very good. A bmi of 18 is a bit underweight. First of all, if you really want to be 100-105, consider two things rationally. 1) how much muscle do you have and your frame size. 2) how old you are. If you have a medium-stronger frame, then you're unlikely to reach 100-105 by cutting calories. And as a side note, having a bigger frame means you're less prone to osteoporosis. Second, if you're young, there's a good chance your body will bounce back to good metabolism if you increase calorie intake slowly. Just remember to burn calories as you eat them...the key is burning calories, not restricting. I have a friend who only drank diet pepsi for 3 weeks. She lost 20 pounds for sure, but was still bigger than most girls. Upon increasing her food intake to merely salads for every meal, she gained all of it back (and I mean ALL). This just shows that calorie restriction alone will only hurt your weightloss efforts.

Keep up with the cardio. Slowly up your food intake to about 1000 calories. Your mind will work better, you'll be happier, and your body will live longer.

 

[illusionist]

thank you for the replies! I will try very slowly increasing my calories and adding some weights to my excersizing. I'm in my early 20's so I hope my metabolism will keep up.

My resting bmr is around 1300 but I've always had a slow metabolism (I used to be very big in grade school) so I plan to raise my calories to 1200-1300. Surprisingly I feel fine at 600 so 1200 sounds like a ton to me. Does anyone have any advice on how to loose the weight that may be gained by the increase, w/o going too low again? I'm thinking of maybe trying the "keep your body guessing" approach. Has anyone tried this?

Once you get to a comfortable calorie intake; keep up the cardio and add some weight lifting in. It's the best way to gain muscle, which will help increase your metabolism and burn fat. Your metabolism speeds up with proper diet and exercise. You actually slow it down by going into starvation mode. So for now, I recommend you not worry about the extra weight gain and get yourself on a proper diet. Once you are on that diet, start working your abs, lower back, legs (i.e. do some crunches, back extensions, squats or wall sits, etc.)..

 

[illusionist]

The lower back is genius -- I dont want anymore muscle on my arms or thighs (I have some from when I did weights and treadmill at 10% elevation) and my calves somehow got insanely huge too.Each is 15.5" at the widest point which I hate. I'll search lower back excersizes since you cant really see muscle there. Are there any other areas like that?

Upper and lower abs, lower back, and obliques.

Some exercises:

Crunches
Back extensions
Oblique V-up
Twisting Crunches

and then adding some weights to these works great too to increase intensity.

i.e. having a weight on top of your chest while you do a crunch
holding weight while you do a back extension

 

[Steve]

I don't get anything being proposed in this thread.

Number one, increasing muscle mass is never going to be simple while dieting. For many, it will actually be impossible. Muscle anabolism is a very energy-intensive process. Hell, simply maintaining muscle is expensive, energetically speaking. What makes you think you are going to add a bunch of muscle while dieting?

Note: A diet requires an energy deficit.

And all these isolation BS exercise suggestions. Tons of ab and lower back work. Wow, man, that's about as old school as you get.

Why? What grounds do you make this recommendation on? Better yet, why do something like this opposed to a full body routine comprised of the major lifts (read: squats, deads, various press, maybe even some pulls)?

And this talk of slowing down the metabolsim..... to lose weight YOU must create an energy deficit. There is no other way around this fact. It doesn't really matter if this deficit comes from a restriction in food OR an increase in exercise. Best bet is a combo of the both. HOWEVER, anytime you invoke an energy deficit, your metabolism is going to down regulate, regardless of how the deficit was created.

 

[Steve]

I did bicep excersizes with 2 lb weights a few months back and my treadmill at a hill thinking it would make those area smaller (I'm not sure what I was thinking) but stopped when I actually saw those areas grow. I've read that as a beginner you can build muscle at a deficit but I'm not sure if this is true. Before dieting my calves seemed to get huge overnight, I seem to just build muscle easily for whatever reason.

I highly doubt it.

Our bodies are governed by a pretty precise set of scientific variables. Extreme muscle growth while living in an energy deficient environment spits in the face of thousands upon thousands of years of adaptation.

1. Isolation movements such as bicep curls CERTAINLY aren't going to make you grow while dieting.

2. Women don't add muscle at an appreciable rate even when eating in a caloric surplus. They simply are not hormonally dispositioned to do so.

If you want, track your measurements. Not just weight. It will tell you the truth about which way your body is heading.

IMO, your best bet to reach your physique goals is to get your nutrition figured out (calories first, than macro breakdowns), start following a WELL-ROUNDED resistance training program, and throw in some cardio as well.

 

[Steve]

Although I completely understand what your saying, at the same time I definitely feel muscle that wasnt there before when I flex. I can post pics if you dont believe me!

Now that I think about it -- I think the muscle gain may have been because of something I was taking to help me loose weight which I've read also helps build muscle at the same time... :-/

People often times confuse muscle exposure to muscle building. We all have muscle. Shedding some fat will always expose it *better*. Often times, this will make you appear bigger or more muscular.

On the flip-side though, I said it already, adding muscle in a caloric surplus is certainly possible, especially for the noob lifter.

It just won't be as appreciable as some seem to state.

 

[BriPT'11]

"Starvation"?

I've seen some people saying that eating around 1,200 calories a day is basically starving yourself. I rarely ever get above that, and when I do, I feel extremely bloated..

Anyways, is it actually starving yourself? 'Cause I seriously don't feel like it..

Also, if the food you eat in general is lower in calories, but you're eating a larger amount then people who, say, eat meat, would you still be starving yourself? I usually don't eat refined sugars, avoid grains, and I'm vegan. So I'd probably have to stuff my face all day to get to what it says my daily caloric intake should be to maintain my weight (2,141 kcal.) Either that or eat a load of french fries..

 

[maleficent]

What are is your current age/height/gender/weight...

starvation mode is one of those words that's kicked around all to often, kind of like plateau - 1200 calories is low... but if you don't have a lot to lose it might be OK for a short term.... but it sounds like a "diet" - diets tend to be short term fixes not long term changes to keep theweight off -

Look at your food intake and keep track of protein/carb/fats and see why you're feeling bloated.. it might be the foods your eating and not the amount of calories.

 

[Bigguy2007]

I find I lose more weight when I eat more. When I eat 1200 caleries I never seem to lose but around 1800-2000 I do. Its just the way my body works i guess. It might just be the way your body is.