I agree with Kristine; energy conservation and various states of unwellness in response to being underweight and/or underfed is a most assuredly real phenomena. Once you've experienced it you know it. There's oodles of research on it, too, it's not like we just made this up (thanks watcher for printing that on leptin). I don't know what anyone is gaining from maintaining a position that food energy is not a nutrient with a minimum value, like any other nutrient. It's obvious there must be a bare minimum for caloric energy otherwise starvation would not be possible.
Theorists may say if you eat this much protein and fat and minerals and vitamins you can avoid all problems of depleting your diet of energy... I totally disagree. Energy is a nutrient. Energy is needed to keep anabolic hormones high and working as intended. Your beautiful vitamins and protein and fat will not be very effective if your insulin and other hormones are such that your body isn't very well building muscles, repairing tissues, building bones, etc because you are eating ridiculously little.

I just don't even see how this is an argument. It's self evident that energy is an essential nutrient, and like any essential nutrient, there is a minimum need for it.
Kwikdriver (sorry for singling you out but you most vocally represent this argument) seems to simultaneously argue that extreme caloric restriction is not starvation because there is no "harm" from explicitly restricting energy, yet at the same time he recognizes that starvation itself does exist (when starvation is a chronic, prolonged extreme deprivation of dietary energy). If you admit starvation is an extreme deficit of energy for too long of a period of time, how can you say extreme calorie restriction (even if not so extreme as to be full blown starvation) is not harmful at all and therefore not semi-starvation? The evidence against extreme calorie restriction & being too underweight is EVERYWHERE, yet there's only a few fringe-eccentrics who will support prolonged extreme undereating and emaciation for health.

Maybe you can maintain this position if you believe in starvation mode... that starvation is an "on off" switch. Eat x amount of energy = no starvation, drop below that and = starvation? Therefore, caloric restriction (to the point of emaciation combined with vague signs of a body not operating well) is not semi-starvation, because there is no "gray area" with starvation. You are starving only when you are near death from it. If this is the belief, I would have to totally disagree. I think starvation, like almost all health problems pertaining to lifestyle, is a gradient. Just as (on the flip side of things) there's not dual states of "diabetes" and "no diabetes", neither is there with under eating/starvation. Starvation "mode" is wrong, starvation as a state is also wrong, it just appears that way because so few people under eat casually that the ones who are exhibiting starvation symptoms are usually those who are extreme cases (anorexic, people starved for some other reason). I do think mild starvation (and thus harm from under eating) exists, I do think starvation is a gradient and eventually you restrict the vital nutrient energy to the point where you are so obviously undeniably unwell that you are unmistakably starving.

Like I said earlier, I think conservation responses can happen for heavy & normal weight people, but they are temporary totally and will cease once diet is returned to adequate energy. This is because conservation response is controlled not only by relative fat stores (dietary energy levels), but also directly by absolute fat stores (weight). Losing weight, when you are above your "set point" (the minimum amount of fat your body will tolerate), is possible if you manage to endure the temporary feelings of increased hunger & lower metabolism, and return to an isoenergetic diet after weight reduction. There will be no further conservation response and eventually you will maintain a new lower weight normally.
OTOH if you are underweight (i.e. naturally heavier person slimming to an abnormally thin weight, or a normal person being underweight) the conservation response will not stop even if diet becomes isoenergetic. This is because, when underweight, the body will not produce enough leptin even when eating to maintain weight, so conservation (and hunger) will continue until weight (feeding) is sufficiently raised.

My laymen understanding of the situation leads me to believe leptin controls conservation response (i.e. starvation mode). Leptin production declines when one is under eating (to lose weight) and when one has insufficient body fat relative to their needs (when underweight). It is leptin which causes all the secondary symptoms of conservation.

Now that that's out of the way, to address the point of whether or not conservation (unwellness via undereating) actually exists (lol)... Actually the starvation mode discussions have delved into the area of normal weight people restricting to be "healthy". I know kwikdriver does not believe it is unhealthy for a normal weight person to habitually undereat and reduce weight to underweight, and maintain that as a lifestyle. So it is valid to bring this into discussion because many on the other end of the argument do not think conservation (and harm from the consequences of efficiency) exists period.

But otherwise I agree with where your going; dieters being deathly afraid of starvation mode because they didn't eat that much the other day is kinda silly. A very heavy person doesn't have to worry about making huge caloric deficits for a few reasons:
1) Lotsa fat, lotsa leptin. Even if you slow things down a bit (which will happen when under eating) you won't be in a strong conservation mode so long as you have plenty of extra fat stores to use. Fat makes leptin, and as long as there's a lot of it you don't have to worry about yucky side effects. Plus, even if they do exist they are temporary if you maintain a weight that is healthy for your individual body and eat an isoenergetic diet to do so.

2) Conservation of energy is not a permanent state, nor is it triggered on a meal to meal basis. It's determined by long term trends of energy turnover rates as well as absolute remaining body energy stores.
Let me give an example. My sister is high normal weight and eats almost entirely unrestricted. I am rather underweight and eat very restricted. If both of us were to eat very little for our needs tomorrow, she would NOT experience profound symptoms of conservation such as coldness, listlessness, lethargy, mental slowness, etc. I, on the other hand, would. Why? My body is more sensitive to conservation because of all the weight I've lost combined with maintaining a weight that is very much below ideal for my height as well as my own personal body. If I were to eat unrestricted and raise weight, our conservation responses would be much more identical and it is likely I wouldn't become completely half dead when not eating enough. So you see it's not just not eating enough for one or two days that determines these things.

So if you didn't eat that much 2 days in a row and you have to lose 50 pounds, don't worry about it. If anything, spontaneous appetite loss and rapid weight reduction when you start low carb is a sign you're doing something right. That happened when I started low carb, too, and I take it as a sign from my body that it can FINALLY use all that extra body fat and regulate energy intake (which it was unable to do before due to hyperinsulinemia). It means you were abnormally far above your setpoint and now your body is finally fixing that boo boo because insulin signaling is working correctly.

I searched a lot for quantitative data on starvation and BMR/RMR but I only could find one. This study is known as the 'Starvation Study', it is a classical one, refered to as a standard work. (google on: "Keys A. The Biology of Human Starvation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1950." )

In this page some numbers are mentioned:

http://www.rednova.com/news/health/...embering_ancel/

Here men were at a normal calorie amount of 3200, and then put in sem-starvation at 1800 cal. Note the amount of 3200 corresponding with the calculators used above.

At 1800 they had severe effects on mind and body.

A 2100 - 1200 calorierangea for women would resemble the 3200-1800 for men. So maybe the 1200 is derived from this study.

For the rest: Starvation research is mostly done in relation to people who are underweight. Obesity fall not in the attention range at this moment. Starvation here is defined as the lack of proper nutrients. Just no research has been done on obese women getting in starvation mode to reach a 'healthy' weight. The yoyo effect suggests the starvation is getting countered by the body effectively and results in more fat only...

Hmmm..."close to anorexia" may have been a bit extreme, but if you are 50% below your BMR that may very well be enough to trigger metabolic slowdown; 1200 calories is pretty low for a person of her size.
IMO unless there is some hidden virtue that I'm not aware of in making weight loss more difficult and frustrating than it has to be, why do it?

Actually, there's lots of information about obese women on low calorie diets. I posted quite a few references earlier in this thread.

Just to throw another log on the fire, there was also a study published recently that people who lost weight quickest had the best success in keeping it off.

ok...

First off...I guess some of the conflict here is arising from definition differentiations. It depends on what you consider "severe" caloric restriction. Most doctors dont even find it necessary to monitor you on a calorie intake of 1200 or that vacinity...only when it's "more" extreme (hence...less than 1200 for any long term period).

Watcher...NO WHERE in that article does it equate BMR with the maintenance of muscle. No one's arguing how the BRM is derived. I get it. But NO WHERE does it say that falling below this will automatically target muscle tissue.

In the starvation experiment...again, I need to ask...are we AT ALL considering the quality of food ingested...they were given cr~p for nutritional purposes. It's no dang wonder they had issues...even at 1800 calories.

I mean...for cryin' out loud...has no one studied an overweight person eating a well balanced, reduced (NOT SEVERLY restricted) diet of around 1100-1400 calories?!?!?!? Not 6oo calories...not 900 calories...but at least 1000 calories? Anyone...anywhere?

Dont know how to say it plainer than that.

I've been keeping an eye on this thread since first posting and am fascinated with all the responses. I haven't researched the subject like some of you have and appreciate the information.

Interestingly, back in my young adulthood I went to a doctor in hopes of securing a script for weight loss medication (I was a whopping 145 or so back then) because in that day it was fairly common to be able to get legal "speed" for losing weight. The doc laughed my request off and handed me a mimeographed 1200 calorie diet plan.

The 1200 thing has stuck with me so I had to ask the question since I have seen at least a dozen postings on this forum that warn dieters to "up" their intake and not slip below 1200 calories a day.

As for me, I eat well balanced meals when I'm hungry. That means some days are as low as 900 while others have been more in the 1400 - 1500 range. At the very least, I've started to track at my calorie consumption on a daily basis.

Thanks to all who have added to the mix!

And I have no idea where this came from, since no one in this thread, or elsewhere, has made this statement except you.



And what is that "minimum need"? That is rather the point of this.




I do? Starvation has a definition. I know it, and use it. I don't fool around with half-baked garbage with flaky, personal definitions like "starving for energy."



Because contrary to your claim, there is no evidence proving that reasonable and planned caloric restriction is harmful, and as I have stated elsewhere, plenty of evidence that shows it prolongs a healthy life.



No! You mean being too underweight is bad for you? That's why I come here: to learn new and fascinating things like this. Now I know.


What does all this nonsense have to do, by the way, with "starvation mode"? It would seem you are importing some other topic into this thread. The OP had a question. It was specific and clearly worded. She was even so kind as to include a definition of what she meant. And now we're off talking about "fringe-eccentrics" and "extreme underweight" and so on. Perhaps it would be best if you started a new thread titled "Newsflash: Being too underweight is bad for you!" You wouldn't find too many people to argue with about it, but it would be the first time I've seen you state your actual position clearly, and you would have done so without putting words in other peoples' mouths, an improvement over this post.

Well since we are all individuals, it would be pretty damn impossible to say "1432 calories is the minimum", wouldn't it?

It would also mean a "calorie" is a unit of energy that meaningfully quantifies how the body actually uses energy (which it doesn't, it is a crude estimation at best)...

Therefore, minimum need for energy can never be really quantified. It is established only on a case by case common sense basis, by observing symptoms. If you are weak, tired, wasting the last bit of fat and muscle you have, odds are you're underfed, no? Seeing as you think obvious symptoms of energy conservation (reduction in anabolism) are health and longevity promoting, this is how I came to the conclusion that you do not think there is a minimum value for energy. As far as I am aware, you feel as long as you are not debilitated & dying from energy deficit (aka starving), and you are taking vitamins and eating protein and fat, you're alright and will probably outlive those eating normally & maintaining normal anabolic functioning & normal metabolic rate.


I'm very glad you are willing to admit death and dying are effects of "harm", therefore you recognize absolute malnutrition - starvation - as valid.
If only we could get you to agree that less extreme effects of underfeeding that do not reach the point of immediate death & dying (which are usually present with prolonged underfeeding) are also harmful to an organism, maybe we can agree it's bad.
I don't know about you but I think essential tissue wasting (bone, muscle, organ, essential fat) is harmful and bad hence why I stick by the definition of "semi-starvation". If one is truly underfeeding, these consequences are inevitable and inescapable if the underfeeding is indefinite. Hence, the term "semi-starvation" (starving for energy etc) is accurate and not an appeal to emotions or a meaningless label. Which, despite your infuriating stubbornness and semantics games, just about all reasonable people will validate and recognize.

Speaking of appeals to emotions...
Just because someone "reasons and plans" a way of eating they think will be good for them, doesn't mean it actually is. Reasoning and planning are meaningless if your goals are unrealistic. I know of anorexics who "plan" 700 cals a day of veggies and pills and lean meat and fat. Yet, they are 77 pounds. They will insist they are healthy and there is nothing wrong with such a goal.

The fact is, those who intend on shutting off their bodies are doing harm (for whatever reason, be it to look more like a child, or to live to be a centurion or whatever the delusional motivation). Hence semi-starvation. That's where prolonged energy restriction eventually leads.

Well see I was just confused since you seem to support underfeeding so as to intentionally induce a state of conservation (which has obvious health consequences, repeatedly outlined for you, whether or not you wish to validate them), which technically could be defined as "being too underweight"... yet you now say you do recognize there is a point you can be conserving "too much" and wasting too great an amount of essential tissues.

Are you so naive that you think there is a "sweet spot" of being in (emotional word incoming) starvation mode? Gasp shock horror. So ok let me see, if you're underfeeding to the point where your body slows down just a lil and you're obviously not that unwell... that's OK as long as you take a centrum and eat a lot of protein...you might even live to be over 100! BUT if you underfeed to the point where people say "ew gross" when you walk down the street and you are experiencing obvious unignorable health problems (like say passing out)... then starvation mode is bad.
Call me simple but I tend to think if something is bad in a great quantity, and it serves no obvious beneficial purpose to the organism (meaning, alienating the possibility that a minimum amount IS beneficial)... then it's reasonable to assume that the thing in question is always undesirable. "Dose" only determines how readily apparent and unpleasant adverse symptoms are.


Well a poster brought it into the thread that no one here thinks that "starvation mode" and underfeeding is problematic for people who don't need to reduce weight (meaning, everyone reasonable recognizes that conservation happens when your body is at its set point and you try to underfeed). I merely pointed out this is not true, and there are some who question whether or not conservation of energy is bad at all, some even think it's good and health promoting barring the restriction doesn't result in obvious decline in health (like death).

Nah, it already was brought up actually... although I shouldn't have made it a focus. My bad

So um, you are picking me out as being inconsiderate of the OP? I was merely responding to a point raised by another poster... chill out. Sorry, I'll drop it.

Since you haven't noticed I'll remind you: that was what the OP was asking. And several people said there was such a figure. It was 1200 calories. Perhaps if you actually read through the thread...?






I've also been known to "admit" the sky is blue. Sometimes I get real magnanimous, and "admit" the earth orbits the sun, but I try to keep such flights of reasonableness to a minimum.




All you have to do is produce the evidence.




No! It's bad to lose essential tissue? Another thing I've learned today.




Note to self: Braille computer. Look into it ASAP.

Ya know, lets jes forget it.
Last post.

Whew...gettin a bit hot in here. (takes jacket off)



I dont think anyone is arguing that if your essential tissue is wasting...that you are in fact doing something harmful to yourself and it's dangerous to be reducing your calorie intake to that level. You are starving yourself. Everyone here agrees...starving=bad.



The disagreement would be regarding at what level that begins to happen. I know it will undoubtably vary from person to person...but for some reason ...way, way, back in the beginning of the thread...the 1200 calorie/day number got thrown out there as definitively being so low, for a woman at 230-ish pounds, as to automatically cause muscle loss....starvation.

So far...no one has presented any evidence that 1200 calories is such an unhealthy level of calories to be eating regularly. I know a fair number of people (not dieters or tying to lose or counting calories) who I would guess eat approximately that amount...just because of what/how they eat.

Just for giggles...I'm gonna call 3 or 4 different docs tomorrow ( maybe even the hospital dietician ) and ask if that number of calories being someone's regular intake is something to be concerned about. Will let you know what they say. (I know it's not Scientific American...but it's all I've got to work with so far).

At least we'll have some professional opinions.

PS...we could be a bit nicer to each other...a bit less sarcastic etc...it wouldnt kill anyone yeah?

Hello All,

I am sorry to say this, and I am going to be blunt, if you don't think that starvation mode exists then you have no business expressing your opinion. It does exist so lets just get past that. So that you don't think I am a jerk I will provide a loose definition of starvation mode, starvation mode is the situation where you are consuming below your daily burn over a period of time (this time period is acutally quite short maybe 4 days) so that your body begins burning lean body mass. We would not be measuring body fat % if it didn't because your body would just burn its fat.

As for what is the calorie level that will put you there? There is no one answer to this question. The 500 below daily burn is simply a baseline. You should only eat the minum number of calories below you daily burn so that you will lose about 1-1.5lbs of "fat" per week.

There are far too many variables to tell someone what there window of opportunity is. Do you workout? Do you have a physical job? What is your gender? Do you have kids? etc... You have to discover this for yourself.

As for the original poster at 1200 calories. I didn't feel like looking up the exact figures so I estimated her at 30 years old, 5'2" tall and 200lbs. Her daily calorie burn without working out would be 2001 calories. This is with essentially zero exercise. So is 1200 starvation mode, not if she is seditary.

As for all the experience and stories of success that have been posted here. It means very little to me unless you were monitoring lean body mass vs body fat %. Very few people do this.

We all need to start measuring body fat and staying away from the scale.

Tom

I know that I'd chew off a leg at 1200 calories and I weigh < 125 # (38 years old)!! I made sure during my 'dieting phase' to never drop my calories anywhere near that low, as I didn't want to be like others I know who lost the weight and have to eat < 1500 to *maintain*. I am at 2200+ now and haven't gained an ounce in a year.

Obviously an occasional low calorie day won't hurt you. However, if you are 200+ pounds I'd suggest starting as high as you can get away with as far as calories go, then dropping them down as necessary. When I was at 1500 or so a day, my hair was falling out, I felt like crap and lost my period. Bleh. Of course everyone is different - if you are full of energy and satiated on 1200 calories, more power to ya!

Good reading:

http://skwigg.com/id32.html

Just curious, would this "starvation mode" occur at a different calorie deficit level between a person who has 10% body fat as opposed to one who has 50%?

For clarification, are your asserting that if a person is 5' 5" and 400 lbs with 60% body fat will be in starvation mode if he consumes less than the 3,500 calories necessary to support his sedentary RMR level? And, that after 4 days of a 500 calorie deficity, his body will pillage his muscle stores in lieu of his 60% fat?