Ok, can we talk about Starvation Mode for a minute? It seems to come up on these boards on almost a daily basis, and I have hovered over the “reply” button so many times, but know that more is needed than a simple reply, but I have never taken the time to put that together. Now is that time.

SUMMARY (tldr): Starvation Mode exists, but not at all how most people think it does. YOU WILL NOT STOP LOSING WEIGHT THROUGH A SEVERE REDUCTION IN CALORIES.

This should be intuitively obvious. If people stopped losing weight by only eating 600-800 calories a day, then when you saw photos of starving people (malnourished 3^rd world countries, or Holocaust photos) those people would not be thin, but they are. In fact, they are insanely thin. How could this be possible?

Starvation Mode is actually something called Adaptive Thermogenisis (AT). AT is a drop in your resting metabolic rate that is independent of the reduction caused by the reduction of body weight and body composition. In other words, you burn less calories as you lose weight, but you also burn less calories simply because you have severely restricted your calories over a period of time.

AT exists, but probably not at NEARLY the level you think it does. It’s worth noting that almost all of the information on AT is derived from a 60+ year old study referred to as the “Minnesota Study”. Ironically, although this is the basis for most peoples’ understanding of Starvation Mode, if you see photos of the participants of this study they are grotesquely thin.

There is an article that does a great job summarizing the findings of this study (and provides loads of other information) : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20027/full

Here are a couple of key relevant points:

1. The reduction in calories burned due to AT is really quite small:

“In the Minnesota study, about 35% of the fall in basal metabolic rate (0.8 MJ or about 180 kcal) was independent of changes in Fat Free Mass (FFM) and therefore ascribed to AT.”

180 calories a day people. If you “normally” would be burning 1600 calories a day, this would mean you are still burning 1420. THEREFORE, if you are eating 800 calories a day you will NOT stop losing due to Starvation Mode. It just means rather than running at an 800 a day calorie deficit, you are running at a 620 a day deficit. So, instead of averaging 1 pound lost every 4.38 days, you will lose 1 pound every 5.64 days.

1. It takes a few weeks to develop, and you “max out”. You do not keep lowering your metabolism forever.

“A maximum adaptation was reached after a 10% weight loss or after 12-20 wk. After 24 wk of semistarvation, there was no further adaptation of basal metabolic rate.”

Disclaimer: I am not advocating starving yourself. I am not advocating any specific daily caloric intake. As always, you should work with your doctor/surgeon/NUT.

so my thing is the thinking that if you eat too few calories you ruin your metabolism *forever*

and I suspect this is not really true. it may be challenging and difficult to get your metabolism so you can eat a normal amount of calories and not gain I have to believe if it is possible to train your body to maintain weight on less, then logically, it must also be possible for this to go the other way too. but I have no personal experience because I was never one to try to exist on very low calories, except of course in the brief time immediately post op from WLS.

@ I don't think you can compare malnourished / starving people and obese people who are eating too few calories (and in what is termed "starvation mode"). We are not truly starving. I'm not sure you can compare typical weight loss with post surgery weight loss either - as we often lose 10% of our weight in less than the 12-20 week timeframe as mentioned in your point #2. Would that mean that you max out sooner and therefore - it is best to get your calories up soon after surgery? I have no idea one way or another - I just know I don't want to be stuck eating 800 calories a day in order to lose/maintain weight loss.

so my thing is the thinking that if you eat too few calories you ruin your metabolism *forever*

and I suspect this is not really true. it may be challenging and difficult to get your metabolism so you can eat a normal amount of calories and not gain I have to believe if it is possible to train your body to maintain weight on less, then logically, it must also be possible for this to go the other way too. but I have no personal experience because I was never one to try to exist on very low calories, except of course in the brief time immediately post op from WLS.

I hope you are right, but I have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary on this site. The idea that there are people eating 1000 calories a day in maintenance is mind boggling to me. But, unless they are lying to us or themselves, there seem to be a lot of people in that boat.

I was a "slow" loser, ate about 1400 calories a day through most of my weight loss phase, exercised intensely, and actually gained 7 pounds of muscle by the time I reached goal. Now, in maintenance, I can easily eat 1900-2000 calories a day and not gain. On the days I run, I eat more like 2400-2600 calories.

I can't help but think that by losing more slowly, not drastically restricting my calories, and maintaining/building muscle, I was able to keep my metabolism normal/high.

When I see people posting that they are gaining or have to restrict themselves to 900 or 1000 calories a day to not gain in maintenance, their stories also usually include having lost very quickly and not done much exercise.

This is all anecdotal and not scientific, but I have been on these forums for about 2.5 years and read hundreds and hundreds of posts, and this is the trend I have observed.

As for "starvation" mode, I do think it is a contributing factor for stalls. Especially in people who are doing a lot of exercise and not eating enough calories to sustain that level of activity. They are essentially adopting a form of anorexia, called "anorexia athletica" where they are creating a dangerously high calorie deficit through exercise.

Well, I'm no doctor, but I am an obsessive reader, and most medical/scholarly articles say the exact same thing.

As for the anecdotal evidence you see in the forums, there are also a lot of studies that show people massively under report their caloric intake (I'm sure this will piss some people off).

I don't have the links handy, but from what I've read it is pretty consistent to see people under reporting by 25% - 50%. From my recollection, people who under report the most are obese people, females, and people under medical supervision.

I'm not discounting that there are people with medical issue that cause them to gain weight more easily. I also believe it's quite possible there are large variations in the caloric expenditure between people. However, all the science I have read shows that starvation mode will slow down your metabolism, but not massively.

However, if you are at a body size that "should" be burning 1600 calories a day, and you have experienced AT, you may only be burning around 1400 calories a day. If you are under reporting you calories by 25% - 50%, you can quickly see how someone might report they have to eat 1000 to maintain.

I also, personally do not subscribe to a pure "calorie in calorie out" approach. I think the body is an extremely complicated organism that is not as black and white as that. I think what you eat is as important as how many calories.

I tend to argue that last point (calorie in/out) less as there is so little actual science behind so much of that, and theories abound. I just take the approach of "well, even if I'm wrong, eating lean Proteins, fruit and veggies and avoiding processed foods can't really be BAD for me."

I should also note, if you stick to lean Protein, fruits and veggies, it's actually pretty hard to consume a ton of calories.

@ I don't think you can compare malnourished / starving people and obese people who are eating too few calories (and in what is termed "starvation mode"). We are not truly starving. I'm not sure you can compare typical weight loss with post surgery weight loss either - as we often lose 10% of our weight in less than the 12-20 week timeframe as mentioned in your point #2. Would that mean that you max out sooner and therefore - it is best to get your calories up soon after surgery? I have no idea one way or another - I just know I don't want to be stuck eating 800 calories a day in order to lose/maintain weight loss.

You will be stuck eating 800 calories a day to lose weight and 10X your weight to maintain. So to maintain 150 pounds you will eat 1500 calories a day. I have searched and searched for another way but it always comes down to eating less calories to weigh less.

@KristenLe starving in this context is simple defined as very low calorie intake. So, by this definition, we are starving. It is not about malnourishment in the sense of unhealthy food, just low calorie intake.

The people in the Minnesota study were put on a very low calorie diet, but they were still given quality food in a controlled environment.

I've said it before, but I think the surgery changes everything, so we aren't the "norm". I truly believe it changes our physiology.

Like @@JamieLogical said, I have observed differently after being on these boards for almost 2.5 years. I have also observed the opposite with myself. Every time I stalled, increasing my calories would break the stall, and I would actually start losing again more consistently. I was at 1100 by the time I hit maintenance, and now maintain on 1300 calories. Anything over 1300 I gain.

I would be very surprised if the malnourished/starving people in 3rd World Countries are getting 100 calories a day - that's true starvation. They have no reserves where we have plenty! I could go quite a while before I truly starved.

@@MaryCatherine I am not sure that's true for everyone. There are alot of variables to consider - and I don't think calories to lose/maintain are as simple as that.

I would be very surprised if the malnourished/starving people in 3rd World Countries are getting 100 calories a day - that's true starvation. They have no reserves where we have plenty! I could go quite a while before I truly starved.

@@MaryCatherine I am not sure that's true for everyone. There are alot of variables to consider - and I don't think calories to lose/maintain are as simple as that.

I have spent my whole life looking for variables and exceptions. I finally realized that it is simple. Calories in minus calories burned equal weight. The only exception is that after the quick extreme loss from surgery, our bodies are more efficient at holding on to their calories.

I've said it before, but I think the surgery changes everything, so we aren't the "norm". I truly believe it changes our physiology.

Like @@JamieLogical said, I have observed differently after being on these boards for almost 2.5 years. I have also observed the opposite with myself. Every time I stalled, increasing my calories would break the stall, and I would actually start losing again more consistently. I was at 1100 by the time I hit maintenance, and now maintain on 1300 calories. Anything over 1300 I gain.

First off, great topic. ^^

Since my lap band in 09 to sleeve revision, other than when I first got out of the hospital(s) (big stall first 10 days due to IV Water retention), I haven't experience stalls because like @@Babbs I increased my calories when I enter one. Now of course, if I fall off the wagon (lap band days) due to improper fill, I'd gain weight but when I'm on program, that's been my experience too. I know everybody is different, but this works for me.

Since we're on the subject, I used to watch food contests videos and always wondered how the heck do they eat so much and stay skinny? grrr Almost all of them think like this:

If anything, it's an interesting watch.

@ - thanks for the post, very interesting read.

@@MaryCatherine Umm, no. I wish it was, but it really isn't that simple. It is a good model. But the problem is people take it too literally. Hormones affect this, the food type affects and individual responses to different types of calories actually makes a difference. Most interesting article I've seen on this subject is here: http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/10/cocktail-science-do-alcohol-calories-count-digesting-spirits.html

To make matters more complicated, just try and figure out how many calories are in your home cooked dinner. We are just doing gross estimates.

But all that said, it is not a bad indicator, just not perfect and I would caution about being too dogmatic. The reason I'm posting this is some people will say "I burned 3500 calories yesterday, but I didn't lose my pound." That's where this tool breaks down. You really have to log food/calories over a period of time. Your long term trend is what is most important. When you are honest with yourself, you will see when you started adding extra calories, and how that is affecting your weight...but that will only show up in the course of a month, not day by day.

I hope I not discouraging people from keeping track of calories, carbs, fat and Protein. Just realize these are hardly perfect numbers. I am looking to stay around 1100 calories and 100g of protein (more on heavy workout days). This has kept my weight consistent for nearly 18 months. I am about ready to experiment with a 5/2 method of controlled fasting (very interesting idea brought up by @lipsticklady).

All we can do is be very honest with ourselves with our tracking, and pay attention to the scale and if you are really serious with the calipers to see what your percentage of body fat is. All the scale and calorie charts really do is act as tools. Hmm, familiar theme, just as your sleeve is a tool, so are these.

@@Christinamo7 - apparently, AT continues long past the initial weight loss period. I know your calorie out goes back up if you put on weight. So your metabolism being "ruined forever" maybe a bit dramatic, but I do think it could be "a bit lower than normal forever".

@@OKCPirate

Well stated - that's what I was trying to convey when I said I don't completely buy in to calorie in / calorie out. You have summed it up much better than I could have.

To make matters more complicated, just try and figure out how many calories are in your home cooked dinner. We are just doing gross estimates.

When I have tracked my calories in the past (not tracking right now as I am maintaining fine without tracking), I literally weighed every ingredient in my home cooked meals, plugged them into a recipe calorie calculator, weighed the finished product, and weighed how much food I actually ate in order to get the correct percentage.

I am SUPER anal when I track calories, which is exactly why I don't track them when I don't have to. I would waste half my life weighing, measuring, calculating, and entering!

@JamieLogical I hear you!!! I do the same. Pretty much unless I'm at a restaurant, I weigh and measure everything! I'm sure there are a lot of people who do, but I think overall it is a minority is all.

And I will also admit that even though I do that, I know I still miss some things - for instance, for some reason I'm bad at logging my coffee. Now, mind you, a 20oz black coffee is only a few calories (hence why I tend to be lazy about logging it).

I'm pretty sure my logging is fairly accurate, at least in aggregate. For instance, when I cook my lunches (which I do in batch), I weigh and measure all ingredients. Then I measure it into exact portions, and divide the recipe by the total number of portions. It is a huge pain and takes forever, and it's the part I hate the most about cooking. BUT, I still know there is variation in each portion. Not every portion got the exact same balance of every ingredient.

Ok, so I'm a little anal and excessive, but we are in the minority. There really are a lot of studies out there backing this up. Here is one: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701#t=abstract

If you don't care to read, here is the conclusion:

"The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis."