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.

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!

Me too, especially the first 18 months. Now I am sort of autopilot. I eat pretty much the same stuff all the time so I don't track as much as used to. But for the first 18 months I did weigh everything and tried to figure Protein and calorie counts, as well as carbs.

I agree I don't think Weight Loss Peeps are in the Norm!! There should be studies done on just WLS peeps. I have seen many times that when people say they are on a true stall that if they throw more Protein and more fluids into the mix they can start losing again. Also if you up exercise. I have heard people say that they don't think exercise is that important because they lost their weight without it but I can tell you at first yes you lose your weight almost like magic!! In the beginning, it is true most of us lose weight easy. But when you get further out from your surgery I know for myself that exercise is my saving grace. I am not perfect in my eating program and I feel that if I didn't walk 4 miles 4 to 5 times a week that I would gain. I lost my weight in 6 months and I lost below what my Dr's wanted me too. They felt like I was losing muscle instead of fat. I lost to 117#'s and I have only gained 8#'s in my 2 and 1/2 years. I have pretty much exercised the whole time consistently. To me that is a WIN WIN DEAL!! I don't feel like I am any way special and anyone can reach their own goals be that whatever they wish for. Good Luck everyone.

I really think when most people mention "starvation mode" they are truly meaning "ketosis". When you deny your body the number of carbohydrates it needs to use for energy it then switches to fat stores (and muscle tissue if you're not getting enough protein) to burn instead. Many people refer to this as a form of "starvation", even though it's clearly not.

I agree that eating too few calories (nutritious ones) can have adverse effects and prevent weight loss just as eating too many can do the same, but I don't think people here truly believe they are "starving"....or at least I would hope they know the difference.

@

I have to get to work so I don't have a lot of time to refute you but there are about 20 studies since that study that counter it. Also you have to consider scientific advances in this century as opposed to the past. That was a post WW-II study and we are now in the post modern era. Also, we have to remember RMR is if you do absolutely nothing but lay in bed. No one posting is in a coma doing nothing, everyone is burning above their RMR, just living, even if they are a slug. So the deficits are much higher than what people think.

I don't know if you missed the whole massively long thread we had about the Biggest Loser contestants but to make a long story short they ruined their metabolism on low calories and excess exercise and years later the results are perm.

I have lost weight increasing my calories and never keeping them below 800, and I have a normal metabolism, most people don't lose 150lbs in a year and keep a normal to high metabolism.

What @@JamieLogical said ...

They are essentially adopting a form of anorexia, called "anorexia athletica" where they are creating a dangerously high calorie deficit through exercise.

Is something I think we should have a more serious discuss about and it would be nice if all the experts that wrote for the magazine would address the topic of post-op eating disorders. We see more of that being posted about here than anything else but it is glossed over and ignored.

@

I have to get to work so I don't have a lot of time to refute you but there are about 20 studies since that study that counter it. Also you have to consider scientific advances in this century as opposed to the past. That was a post WW-II study and we are now in the post modern era. Also, we have to remember RMR is if you do absolutely nothing but lay in bed. No one posting is in a coma doing nothing, everyone is burning above their RMR, just living, even if they are a slug. So the deficits are much higher than what people think.

I don't know if you missed the whole massively long thread we had about the Biggest Loser contestants but to make a long story short they ruined their metabolism on low calories and excess exercise and years later the results are perm.

I have lost weight increasing my calories and never keeping them below 800, and I have a normal metabolism, most people don't lose 150lbs in a year and keep a normal to high metabolism.

What @@JamieLogical said ...

They are essentially adopting a form of anorexia, called "anorexia athletica" where they are creating a dangerously high calorie deficit through exercise.

Is something I think we should have a more serious discuss about and it would be nice if all the experts that wrote for the magazine would address the topic of post-op eating disorders. We see more of that being posted about here than anything else but it is glossed over and ignored.

Actually, the article I posted was from 1992 I believe, the Minnesota Study was 60+ years ago yes. The only reason I reference that study is that even today it is the single most referenced and quoted study, as well as where most people derive their information for "Starvation Mode".

When you get the time, I really would appreciate it if you post any links you have to studies that refute the relatively low impact of AT. I would definitely be interested in reading them. From my research and reading, I haven't found that to be the case, but I always keep an open mind. Studies with alternative findings are much appreciated.

I also feel compelled to restate my position on this because, based on some of the comments, I think people may have misunderstood what I was saying, and there is probably no need to debate things we agree on:

• I do not believe that people who are eating 800 calories a day completely stop losing weight because they are in "Starvation Mode".
• I believe Adaptive Thermogenesis (AT) exists
• I find it very hard to believe that AT can lower your Energy Expenditure (EE) so low that you are only burning 800 calories a day.

I think some people believe I don't think AT is real. I do.

I think some people want to debate that AT contributes to the difficulty in losing or regaining weight. I agree that AT plays a potentially big part in that. Even if AT only is a 180 calories a day reduction (or more, say it's 300 calories a day, or even 400), OF COURSE it impacts weight loss and maintenance. You will lose slower with the reduction in EE. It is also a heck of a lot harder to maintain at even 1600 versus 1800, etc. I definitely do not dispute that.

My whole point is that I see posts almost everyday that say "you are in a stall because your body has gone into starvation mode". And the people in the stall most often are claiming to eat below 1000 calories, and often working out. I just don't think AT is responsible for that.

And for those people that say they break stalls by adding in more calories, or different foods, or increase carbs. I am not even arguing that this has an effect. I think that variety and "shocking" the system to some degree can have an impact on your body.

The ONLY thing I'm saying, is that I don't believe, from what I have seen in scientific research, that it is possible to lower your EE to below 800 calories a day through Adaptive Thermogenesis, or "Starvation Mode".

So what is your explanation for someone eating 600 calories a day and working out and not losing for between 1 and 3 weeks? I would tend to agree that there's an upper limit (or lower limit depending on your perspective) for how far AT can modify metabolism.

I have lots of reasons I think having someone 6 weeks out from surgery eating under 800 cal a day and asking them to work out is nuts that don't have to do with AT.

However, I am in contact with several people who are saying they are eating 600 cal a day and working out 3x or more a week and haven't lost in 1-2 weeks. It doesn't seem medically possible I agree. However, short of assuming their reporting is inaccurate, I don't have an explanation.

However, the literature related to anorexics indicates that the body adjusts to these very low levels of intake and weight loss slows significantly, prompting the patient to further restrict because they feel they will start gaining weight if they don't.

I admit I didn't read the study mentioned in the OP, but I am curious to know exactly how much of a calorie deficit the subjects of the study had. Were they truly "starving" in the sense that anorexics or people in impoverished environments are "starving" or were they merely creating a significant enough caloric deficit to lose weight? I would think the impact that true starvation would have on your metabolism could potentially be more drastic and permanent.

I have no explanation for stalls. The body is a complex entity. I wish I did.

I believe in the Minnesota Study they were at or under 1500 calories. Hardly "starving" by bariatric standards.

It's certainly possible that a lower caloric intake could have an enhanced effect. For obvious ethical reasons there are not many clinical studies of this. That's also the reason the Minnesota Study is still such a significant point of reference even after 60 years. Those "volunteers" were conscientious objectors to the war that participated in lieu of being drafted. Ethically questionable by today's standards.

And on the topic of stalls. I think it's generally accepted that if you just stay the course (assuming you're following doctors/NUTs instructions) the stall will "break". If it was due to AT that should not be the case as AT is a very long lasting effect of low calorie consumption.

I have always been a believer that it all comes down to calories consumed versus calories burned...

I have always lost the best weight when I eat less...it's that simple.

Eat less, and exercise more!

I work out early in the morning, on an empty stomach, in terms of food.

I believe my body will look for a source of energy, and if it is not in what I recently ate, it will turn to what I have stored away as fat.

And you know what? It worked! I can give first-hand experience along with 110% success.

But now that all my excess fat is gone, I do have to consume some Protein before a work out so as not to lose/damage muscle and other vital things.

Eat more to lose more? If that were true there would not be any over weight people.

I have found over the years reading posts on this forum, that the so-called "Starvation" mode has been way over exaggerated.

I have often wondered if people did not use this as another excuse to eat more.

I know from experience as an ex-obese person I have always looked for ways to rationalize my behaviour.

And because of it, it eventually led to my failure to succeed at any diets.

B-52

That might be true as you stated. But...EAT MORE LOSE MORE is more than likely for the average person...but a WLS person is in a much different scenario. We try to eat healthier than your average person does to lose weight!! We focus on Protein and a person who didn't have surgery might just be focusing on foods that aren't that healthy. I personally buy into the scene that WE NEED more Protein and less Carbs not complex carbs but bad carbs, so to speak. With WLS people they are usually trying to combine healthy choices with their exercise. As we knowthis is what our Dr.'s and Nutritionist tell us to do. It takes a balance to get results that we crave!!

"Eat more to lose more" is a little hyperbolic. It's more like "eat ENOUGH to lose steadily". Clearly, in order to lose weight, you have to create a caloric deficit. I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. But creating too large a caloric deficit over an extended period of time has undeniable impact on your metabolism. Even the study the OP mentions concedes that much.

Possibly another way of stating this is quality and quantity matters in everything...religion, relationships, alcohol, food and exercise. To everything there is a point of balance. I can't get around the fact that even low calorie fruit slows down my weight loss, but moderate quantities of vegies don't. White, processed carbs seems to have a negative effect, yet more dense whole grains doesn't. Could be an old Celtic gene anomaly, but it seems to be true in my case. Different hormones count just as much as calories, and you are free to ignore this, but also don't blame the hormones if you have figured out a way to ingest 3000 calories a day as you sit on the couch all day while blaming the gain on your genes and glands. Most of what I have heard in this post is spectacular common sense draped in solid logic with some good science behind the positions. That is my position and I shall not waiver.