@MonicaJ wrote:
Starvation mode isn't a real thing. If you are actually starving to death, your body will try to conserve calories. But even then you would still lose weight if you were eating at a deficit. It's why anorexics aren't fat.
Well, whether he meant to be specific with terms or not, starvation mode is not the same as starving.
And starvation mode is real.
Shoot - a diet is nothing more than controlled starving in reality - hopefully doing it at a level the body doesn't get stressed out about. But it can.
And his effect will happen. Your deficit slowly disappears until there is none, your body does indeed hold on to everything, by the fact it adapted slower to conserve. He did not use any of the common myths though, like you'll gain more fat, or it happens after a missed meal or 1 low day - those are myths.
But read up on some studies if unaware that adaptive thermogenesis is very real, and you don't have to be starving, or even eating a low calorie level. It's all about the deficit for the amount of fat you got available.
True - as you mention, you can indeed keep cutting calories more and more to get around it, but who want to attempt to lose weight and then maintain later eating say 500 calories less than what could have been possible. That's a recipe for failure.
http://www.t-nation.com/diet-fat-loss/truth-about-metabolic-damage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i_cmltmQ6A
Here's the 6 month study in full if you want to dig in to it, I thought I'd point out some tidbits.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004377
Participants had to be between BMI 25-30, overweight category, but healthy otherwise. They were excluded if they smoked, exercised more than twice a week, were pregnant, lactating or post-menopausal, had a history of obesity (BMI>32), diabetes, cardiovascular disease, eating disorders, psychological disorders, substance abuse or regularly used medications except for birth control. So that may have a bearing in comparison.
Diet was 55 / 15 / 30 for C / P / F.
CR (Calorie Restriction) was 25% deficit from TDEE, so not massive.
CR + EX (EXercise) was 12.5% deficit plus 12.5% calories burned in cardio exercise 5 x week, each session being 403-569 calories for 45-53 min (women and men difference).
LCD (Low Calorie Diet) was 890 cal/day until 15% of weight was loss, then back to maintenance calories by month 3, whatever it was then. That's a tad massive
DEXA scans for body composition of LBM (Fat Free Mass (FFM)) and Fat Mass (FM). Sedentary TDEE measurements in a metabolic chamber for 23 hrs. SMR (Sleeping Metabolic Rate (BMR)) measured chunk of night no movement.
Several formulas related to measured Sedentary TDEE at baseline based on all available stats, to compare down the road when stats changed.
At 3 month check, sedentary TDEE had dropped by the following amounts, below what the formulas would have indicated for new measured LBM and FM, and SMR. In other words, it lowered the expected amount, and an additional...
CR - 371
CREX - 2
LCD - 496
At 6 month check, there was some recovery to be had, and reminder the LCD was at maintenance this entire time from 3-6 months...
CR - 209
CREX - 129 over expected
LCD - 275
So notice that even after 3 months maintenence level eating, the initial LCD group still had a TDEE 275 below what was expected for their current LBM and FM. Perhaps more time at maintenance it would have recovered?
The CR group slightly recovered, but still 209 lower than expected.
The CR+EX group actually had an increased TDEE.
Now that was Sedentary TDEE in the lab that was compared.
Daily TDEE with all activity was also compared to their SMR, TDEE/SMR for physical activity rate (PAR).
At month 3, CR and LCD had significant drops in PAR below what would have been expected for their current LBM and FM, by CR 350 and LCD 497, with CR-EX having none. At month 6, CR 215 and LCD 241, so again some recovery.
So the NEAT part of their day decreased as expected because of lower weight, but even more than expected because of less movement, resulting in lowered figures above.
So, that is how much their TDEE dropped along with their lower eating level and weight.
Now imagine during your weight loss, is your TDEE being lower going to help or hinder you for sticking to an eating level? May depend on how little you really want to eat.
They lost in total CR - 8.3, CR-EX - 8.4, LCD - 11.2.
So while the LCD did lose the most (in 3 months too compared to 6), their TDEE had only recovered from 496 to 275 below what it could be, perhaps more recovery was coming. So no wonder the first few months of maintenance could be the hardest, you have the most suppressed metabolism then.
And notice that even the great results of the CR-EX group, still meant 8.4 lbs in 6 months of dieting, with a 25% deficit in essence, 12.5 created by diet, with additional 12.5 by extra exercise. But no loss of TDEE, in fact increase, and mere decent level of cardio.
Other point to keep in mind - no more than 2 x exercise a week was being done prior - so they had a lot of room for improvement. No weight loss prior, so full burning metabolism. And in overweight range, not obese where these effects might not be so bad.
Thought it was interesting info to know. So when you are talking about metabolism slowing down, it's more correctly your TDEE slowing down with all the components of it to some degree, beyond what was going to happen anyway. And recovery to expected levels could be well over 3 months when at maintenance. They reference another study where it took 6 years to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help the next searcher of answers, mark a reply as Solved if it was, or a thumbs up if it was a good idea too.
Best Answer