Starvation mode: Myth or Reality?

mommiranda · 07-26-2007, 01:50 AM

There was a great poll about calories/day that banded people eat. Help me make a decision about what calorie goal I should set for myself (I start real food this FRIDAY). My doc? He said under 1000 cal/day and less is better.

OPTION A: Don't starve! Always try to eat 1000 cal/day to keep your metabolism going.

OPTION B: Go LOW, low low. 700 cal/day I think is possible for me since my hunger has been pretty limited.

I'm torn!!

The armchair nutritionist in me argues for OPTION A. People need to eat, and maybe why I've been a slow loser all my life is that I am actually good at eating low calories - which causes my body to nose dive its metabolism. Exhibit A is the fact I've lost only 12 lbs in 2.5 weeks post-op, with super low intake of liquids.

The practicing scientist in me says: Option B! Heck, option A is my rationalization and the reason I have the weight problem since I justified eating more because of it. Also, bodies get energy from somewhere. I am simply NOT a plant, and eventually I have to burn my fat stores.

Feel free to help me decide!

MM
P.S. No exercise just yet, and I know that will help.

edieparks · 07-26-2007, 01:54 AM

My vote is for calories and exercise.
I know you don't want to hear exercise but GET REAL.

edie

mommiranda · 07-26-2007, 01:58 AM

You are RIGHT! On the positive side I actually like exercise and have a great history of sustaining weights/cardio (weights I like MUCH better) for years. But having my second child just knocked me out of the gym mode and I need to fight my way back into that sweet spot.

MM

JulieNYC · 07-26-2007, 04:57 PM

I think it's a myth and a reality. I think it's a myth for most morbidly obese people -- we have plenty of storage and our bodies don't need to conserve and they know it. I know this to be true for my body.

That said, I do think there are people whose bodies are simply different and for whom weight loss is faster overall at a higher caloric intake.

For what it's worth, with good food choices my nutritionist says 800 cals/day is enough for most people in the losing phase.

enterprise01 · 07-26-2007, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieNYC

I think it's a myth and a reality. I think it's a myth for most morbidly obese people -- we have plenty of storage and our bodies don't need to conserve and they know it. I know this to be true for my body.

That said, I do think there are people whose bodies are simply different and for whom weight loss is faster overall at a higher caloric intake.

For what it's worth, with good food choices my nutritionist says 800 cals/day is enough for most people in the losing phase.

Gotta agree with Julie on this one. I try to stick to around 800 cal most days. Anything more than 1000 cal per day and I won't lose weight at all. It's been that way for me since I was 14 years old. I've found that eating different foods from week to week helps with the weight loss. If I eat the same thing all the time, it's like my body gets used to it and then I hit a plateau.

I once heard a nutritionist say that fat people need nutrients (vitamins and minerals), not calories. If the starvation mode was a reality, I don't think we'd have those doctor supervised, liquid fasting diets that so many hospitals sponsor. I tried one of those years ago and they put me on 600 calories a day (three 200-calorie protein shakes a day). I lost the weight fast and consistently.

IndioGirl55 · 07-26-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulieNYC

I think it's a myth and a reality. I think it's a myth for most morbidly obese people -- we have plenty of storage and our bodies don't need to conserve and they know it. I know this to be true for my body.

That said, I do think there are people whose bodies are simply different and for whom weight loss is faster overall at a higher caloric intake.

For what it's worth, with good food choices my nutritionist says 800 cals/day is enough for most people in the losing phase.

OMG Julie NYC your weight loss has been fantatistic ...... I was just banded and get mushies/pureed foods today and can go back to the gym

Calories in Calories out = Weight Loss

mommiranda · 07-28-2007, 12:08 AM

Thanks all! OK, I am exercising again which feels great, so let's hope I keep it up. And I'll aim for 800 cal/day - your point about the low cal supervised diets - 600 cal/day - is a good one. It must work.

My experience was similar to yours as a teenager/youngster - I had to eat much, much less than most people to lose anything. Maybe there is huge variation. On the bright side I am so, so excited that the band helps me manage hunger so these levels are really possible for me. I'm sure with my first fill it will get even easier.

MM

NanaRenan · 07-28-2007, 01:33 AM

I haven't been banded yet, so in the coming weeks-months-years, I may be needing to read this thread repeatedly.

But, I can state emphatically for myself that the whole 'survival mode' DOES exist. It's what's made it practically impossible to lose weight over the last 15 years!

If I restrict calories too much, I lose well for the first week or two, but then I lose ALL appetite. Time and time again, doctor after doctor has looked at my stalled weight loss and read my food journals only to tell me "You've stopped losing because you aren't eating enough."

It's enough to make one positively postal, I tell ya!!!:angry

When I did Weight Watchers, the weeks I ate at the BOTTOM of my points range or below, I would have minimal loses. 0.4 lbs or less. But weeks I ate at the TOP of my allotted points range or even ABOVE it, I would have losses of .6 to 2.0 lbs.

Go figure!

I just decided that in prehistoric times, I would have been worshipped as a goddess, because I would have survived every drought, famine or locust swarm while all the skinny women dropped around me. :D

OregonHolly · 07-28-2007, 02:16 AM

What baffles me about the "starvation mode" debate is this: if starvation mode were a "reality" then why are there skinny anorexics? Lets face it, their bodies aren't holding on to ANY fat.

Jachut · 07-28-2007, 04:09 AM

I think there's some truth, but a lot of myth surrounding it.

I really believe when you drop to like 700 calories a day to lose weight, you can kiss goodbye to EVER eating like a normal person again. I think that's part and parcel of weight loss to be honest. I was discussing this in another post. A woman of my height who does as much exercise as I do should be able to eat over 2000 calories a day and maintain her weight, there is no flipping way I can get away with eating that much. So yes, get heavy, then cut calories to lose and you're stuck with it forever to keep the weight away. I just dont think there's a rational scientific explanation for that.

I'm really glad I was happier with slow weight loss and my calories never got below 1500 and now my maintenance level is 1500 to 1800 a day. But for someone 5ft 10, 169lb who runs an hour most days, that's very low to just maintain, technically I should be losing. If I'd dropped to 700 I really believe I'd be maintaining now on 1000, no way do I want to live my life like that forever more.

I also tend to lean more towards the camp that does not believe high protein diets preserve muscle muss, but rather they increase the loss of lean body mass and make you prone to massive regain. There's as much "credible" evidence on the net for that theory as there is in favour, truth is they dont really know for sure yet.

So yeah, I dont know if "starvation mode" exists or not, but those are my theories and I've pretty much lived by them, I just think moderation in all things - except for exercise. Exercise like a freaking maniac to lose weight rather than stop eating. It will work. And do it forever and it will keep the weight away. Its much much much easier to make myself go out and run for an hour than it is to not eat a piece of the cake I just made!

NanaRenan · 07-28-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OregonHolly

What baffles me about the "starvation mode" debate is this: if starvation mode were a "reality" then why are there skinny anorexics? Lets face it, their bodies aren't holding on to ANY fat.

I see what you're saying, but genetics factor in.

How many full-blown anorexics have you ever seen who was the child of obese parents?

In hindsight, I was probably a borderline anorexic as a pre-teen and teen...5' 6" and 100-105 lbs for several years. I tho't because my sister and mother had been obese in childhood and I had NOT, that I had dodged a bullet and would never be obese.

Nope.

Eventually the genes caught up with me. Perhaps if I hadn't married young and started a family, I might have stayed super-thin. But the 10 or 12 lbs I gained between each child and the subsequent fight (DIET!) to get those pounds off escalated into a totally decrepit metabolism and frequent wrangles with "survival mode".

**Kat817** · 07-28-2007, 11:10 AM

I think somehow or another it works along the lines of what Jacqui (Jachut) is saying, it is kind of like they tell you with your cell phone batterty----in the begining do not charge it until it is completely dead, to charge it when it is not completely down, it oftentimes will only charge in that original charge range then.

If we show our bodies we can survive on minimal calories, then it will, and anything over that gets stored. So if you are only eating 900 calories a day, and you showed you could survive at 600, then even those extra 300 calories get stored as fat. Now someone who has not dieted to those extremes, can lose fantastically at 900 calories a day. I think it is what you have done that sets your individual "starvation" mark. I know the only way I have ever been able to break a plateau, is to eat with abandon for a few days and then back off, and I get going again.
Makes me think these years of failed diets, and wierd food intakes, and such, are not as far behind us as it would seem, they are still here making today that much more difficult to figure out!
I agree exercise is KEY!
Kat

OregonHolly · 07-28-2007, 03:47 PM

Yeah you guys are right. After I lost 65 lbs on Optifast back in the 80's (when Oprah did it) my metabolism went to sleep mode. Of course I gained back 85 lbs after that. I had a "body composition analysis" yesterday at my doc's office (I'm still pre-band, in testing) and found out that for my age (51) and my height (4'11") my basal metabolic rate is 1305 kCal per day - they said that's what I need to basically maintain with no exercise. Yikes, that's not much. So I don't plan on losing very fast, and it's good to know that going in. It just worries me some that I'll be stuck on 800 calories forever. OH well, it's either that or be fat and unhealthy forever. As you can imagine, at my height and now 203 lbs, I look "stout", "portly" like a tubby fat 12 year old. Well that image is going away soon; scheduled for AP band on Oct 8, 2007. Maybe in 2 years someone will call me "petite"!

Jachut · 07-28-2007, 06:12 PM

I'm actually glad for the fact that I was such a pathetic dieter in the past, lol. I have never had long periods where I've survived on low calories, ever in my life and I really think that's partly why I've been able to lose on such a high intake.

I've a whole history of planning to diet, but not actually doing it. I only ever made half hearted attempts, and I dont actually think I"ve ever done a diet that was under about 1200 calories a day. I'd never lost more than about 15lb prior to banding, but then I'd never been overweight enough to need to until the past few years.

I wonder if that's stood me in good stead? Its interesting to think about.

WASaBubbleButt · 07-28-2007, 10:20 PM

I think one issue many forget is that even if starvation mode was a reality (and I don't believe it is) your metabolism is going to slow down with weight loss ANYWAY. It's how the body works. It's part of the weight loss process.

My doc says starvation mode is when little children in Africa eat 100 calories every few days.

Dr. Currie says there is no scientific data to back up starvation mode.

Jeremy (forgot his last name) is an OH fitness staff person. He has his masters in fitness and nutrition. He said the starvation mode for obese folks is an outdated myth.

Weight Watchers tried to help stop the myth by printing an in-depth article explaining what really does happen when people slow down during weight loss. They tried to explain it is not starvation mode, it is quite different. ANYONE who diets will slow down their metabolism, that is not starvation mode and more calories will not help.

There is a discussion on my doc's board right now regarding this topic. Someone claims that at 500 calories daily you will not lose weight (she's talking across the board, all of us) but if you double that and consume 1000 calories daily, you will lose. I've asked her to support that with some science, ANY science... we haven't heard a word from her since then.

The people supporting the starvation mode myth are people such as body builders, for the most part. They are great for showing you how to safely lift weights but just because they lift weights does not mean they have a lot of training in how the body absorbs foods, etc. I leave the details of how the body works on a chemical level to those in science, not those who lift weights.

The reality is simple, if you consume 1000 calories you will have to work harder to burn it than if you eat 500 calories. The body does not "think" and it doesn't contemplate what it will do with extra calories, it just does it. It is a chemical reaction.

My doc says to stick to 800 calories daily, no lower than 700. I stick to 600 calories daily and I'm doing fine. I'm losing weight (most of the time <g>), I'm losing at a pace I am happy with (most of the time <g>), I have plenty of energy, and life is good. My thinking is that anything above what is needed for basic nutrition is just calories that will work to store fat. I'd prefer to burn it.