That’s a moderately fair question. One answer is in vitro—start with blood tests, and possibly with examining fat cells.
Another possibility is a different sort of poking. Dietary changes should be designed to be experiments for finding out what’s going on rather than aimed directly at fat loss.
I’d really like to see some work on why Eliezer gets so knocked out from missing a meal or two. Frequent blood tests? I have a notion there’s something in the situation about his liver, which I believe is in charge of maintaining blood sugar in the short run.
Glucagon causes the liver to convert stored glycogen into glucose, which is released into the bloodstream, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s got something wrong with that pathway.
(Yay for the well-stocked subconscious supplemented by google. I thought the liver produced glucagon, and I was wrong, but wikipedia turned up the information.)
I think so. I get hungry and unhappy, but not knocked out.
There seem to be people (not a high proportion) who forget to eat—they keep on going for two or three days and then realize that the reason they’re feeling bad is that they need food.
I’ve done almost no dieting. My weight gradually drifted upwards to 184 pounds from about 125 in the 1970s. I’ve slowly cut back on simple carbs over the years as I found they were bad for me—a box of 8 Entemann’s large chocolate covered donuts eaten in the course of a day would lead to two or three days of being knocked out, including an internal monologue of “I don’t care”.
The current weight loss seems to be related to reading some Eric Franklin (probably in his Relax Your Neck, Liberate Your Shoulders) about how the ribs connect to the sternum, combined with imagery for relaxation.
When I did that, I realized that I was holding my shoulders up all the time, and let them come down. This seemed to cause me to feel less anxious, and to my surprise, I found I was much less interested in eating when I wasn’t hungry.
Previously, my hunger-satiety spectrum was hungry, not hungry but food is interesting, full. This didn’t mean I was eating all the time, but I was eating somewhat more than my gut wanted. I didn’t binge because I don’t have that sort of pain tolerance. Quite suddenly, I was spending a fair amount of time in a state of “comfortable and definitely don’t want food”. Sometimes I would hit a wall while eating.
Comfortable and don’t want food is more common if I completely avoid simple carbs.
Thanks for sharing. Anyway, here is my hypothesis which is the result of fairly intense thought and internet research over the past couple years.
Although we talk about peoples’ metabolic rate as if it is a specific number, e.g. 1866 Kcal/day, the reality is that there is a range. If you eat towards the top of the range, you might gain a very small amount of weight but for the most part your body will adjust by running hotter. On the other hand, if you eat towards the bottom of the range, you will lose little or no weight but your body will adjust by running cooler. People sometimes refer to the cooler situation as “starvation mode,” but I think this is an overstatement. “Starvation mode,” i.e. eating at the bottom of your metabolic range is completely normal and probably healthier that eating at the top. Common sense says that revving your system hour after hour, day after day, puts more wear and tear on it.
Looking at your typical American in his late 20s or 30s who is slowly drifting up in terms of weight, one can infer that he must be eating at the top of his metabolic range—otherwise he would not be gaining weight. The upshot is that he actually has a very fast metabolism at that time. Which goes against the conventional wisdom but when you think about it, it makes sense.
If such a person suddenly starts fasting, his metabolism will eventually adjust but the adjustment probably takes a few hours or days. In the meantime, this person will quickly burn through most of the readily available energy in his system and he will feel terrible pretty fast.
The other thing which is going on for a lot of people is mild addiction to certain foods. i.e. there are certain foods which produce a rush of good feeling (a bit like smoking a cigarette but less intense) followed later by withdrawal symptoms. Probably this is also part of the reason why it feels pretty terrible for some people to miss a meal or two.
Of course I don’t know EY’s individual situation that well, but I do think that it’s completely normal for a lot of people to feel knocked out if they miss a couple meals. If you eat at the top of your metabolic range for years, the feeling of running hot seems normal and “starvation mode” seems pretty scary. But in my opinion, what’s normal (in the sense of doing what your body is designed to do) is running cool. Starvation mode = normal mode.
Since your weight has been steady and/or drifting downwards, probably you are eating more towards the bottom of your metabolic range. Thus it’s much easier for you to miss a meal than it otherwise would be.
Anyway, that’s my hypothesis. I fully admit that I’m not an expert when it comes to diet, weight loss, etc. What I am saying is based purely on my own reasoning, research, and self-experimentation.
Your hypothesis is interesting, and to a certain extent my personal experience mimics it. When I’m eating to gain weight, I tend to be more active and fidgety, and I also tend to be warmer. When I’m eating to lose weight, I tend to be more sedentary and still, and I tend to be cooler. Yet more evidence for bulking in the winter and cutting in the summer. I think it’s possible to alter your metabolism to use more calories and still maintain weight, if you do it in a controlled manner (and increase activity as well). It’s certainly possible to alter your metabolism to use less-and-less calories via constant caloric restriction and excess low intensity steady state cardio.
“Starvation mode” is what happens when your body is breaking down organ tissue and muscle for energy. This doesn’t happen until a long time without any food; how much depends on how much fat a person is carrying. Check this study out, an obese patient went over a year without food (they had supplements for essential nutrients) and was healthy at the end of it.
I think it’s possible to alter your metabolism to use more calories and still maintain weight, if you do it in a controlled manner (and increase activity as well).
I think you are probably right, but what would you be trying to achieve in doing so?
“Starvation mode” is what happens when your body is breaking down organ tissue and muscle for energy.
Well it depends on how you define the phrase “starvation mode.” I regularly hear people assert that their weight loss efforts (and other peoples’) have stalled or plateaued because of “starvation mode.” From the context, it seems that they are referring to the “running cool” which I have described and not something extreme like breaking down organ and muscle for energy.
I think you are probably right, but what would you be trying to achieve in doing so?
The more food you eat, the more micronutrients you take in. If you have a higher metabolism, you’ll get more micronutrients and still maintain weight. Plus, you get to eat more ice cream. If you previously damaged your metabolism (and I’d call a 1200cal maintenance ‘damaged’), then raising your metabolism will be good for you.
Well it depends on how you define the phrase “starvation mode.”
I mean, if you’re using it wrong, sure. “Starvation mode” is largely another bullshit meme propagated by the fitness/nutrition crowd, like ‘toning’ and ‘heavy weights make you bulky’. Fact is, you’ll downregulate your metabolism by eating less, so eventually, you have to eat even less to break the plateau. This isn’t starvation mode.
The more food you eat, the more micronutrients you take in
This doesn’t seem like the ideal way of optimizing your micronutrient consumption.
Plus, you get to eat more ice cream.
I’m not sure that makes much of a difference. To illustrate, consider a strapping young man who can eat a pint of ice cream a day and stay in energy balance. Compare him with a petite girl who can only eat half a pint a day of ice cream and stay in balance. Does the man derive significantly more pleasure in life from ice cream eating than the girl? I doubt it.
If you previously damaged your metabolism
Well how would you define “damaged” and what does it mean?
I mean, if you’re using it wrong, sure
No need for a semantic debate, what’s commonly referred to as “starvation mode,” which I have referred to as “running cool,” is perfectly normal and healthy in my non-professional opinion.
This doesn’t seem like the ideal way of optimizing your micronutrient consumption.
Perhaps not. Supplementation seems like an easy solution, but it’s been shown multiple times that you get more benefit from micronutrients from food vs micronutrients from supplementation.
I’m not sure that makes much of a difference.
If you don’t care about more ice cream, then FINE. More for me.
Well how would you define “damaged” and what does it mean?
Layne Norton has a few goodvideos on the subject. “Damage” refers to the metabolism being downregulated to the point that a person can eat very low calories, do tons of exercise, and still not lose weight/fat.
No need for a semantic debate, what’s commonly referred to as “starvation mode,” which I have referred to as “running cool,” is perfectly normal and healthy in my non-professional opinion.
I know it’s a pointless crusade, but I really dislike terms being misused. Starvation is a very real thing, and when the word is misused, it conflates “Starvation causing muscle/organ loss” with “Metabolism is downregulated,” You absolutely need to avoid going into starvation, but downregulating metabolism is an inevitable effect of losing weight.
Perhaps not. Supplementation seems like an easy solution, but it’s been shown multiple times that you get more benefit from micronutrients from food vs micronutrients from supplementation.
The more obvious solution is to tweak your consumption of foods which contain lots of micronutrients compared to their calorie content. i.e. eat your vegetables.
If you don’t care about more ice cream, then FINE. More for me.
What I care about is eating satisfaction. It’s not obvious to me that more ice cream necessarily means more eating satisfaction.
“Damage” refers to the metabolism being downregulated to the point that a person can eat very low calories, do tons of exercise, and still not lose weight/fat.
I would call that “running cool” and in my non-professional opinion, it’s perfectly normal and healthy. And if such a person wants to lose further fat, they need only reduce their calorie intake further. By the way, I started listening to the video, and I simply don’t believe that a person can do 2-3 hours a day of cardio, eat 800 to 1000 calories a day, and not lose weight. I think any person who makes such a claim is lying about his food intake.
I know it’s a pointless crusade, but I really dislike terms being misused
Fine, but if you have a semantic nitpick I think it’s good practice to label it as such. Here’s what I said at the beginning:
People sometimes refer to the cooler situation as “starvation mode,” but I think this is an overstatement.
By the way, I started listening to the video, and I simply don’t believe that a person can do 2-3 hours a day of cardio, eat 800 to 1000 calories a day, and not lose weight. I think any person who makes such a claim is lying about his food intake.
Layne is a PhD in nutrition science, record holding powerlifter/bodybuilder, and renowned coach. So he has academic credentials, personal success, and has successfully helped others. There are very few people in nutrition that you can generally trust, and he’s one of them. So when he says something, it’s generally OK to accept it on face value.
Fine, but if you have a semantic nitpick I think it’s good practice to label it as such
Fair point. I’ll do that from now on. “Starvation mode” is just one of those phrases that trigger an immediate “No, you’re using that word wrong, stop it!!” reactions (and yes, I know about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, but I’m not a linguist, and I have an interest in phrasing having consistent meanings!)
Layne is a PhD in nutrition science, record holding powerlifter/bodybuilder, and renowned coach. So he has academic credentials, personal success, and has successfully helped others. There are very few people in nutrition that you can generally trust, and he’s one of them. So when he says something, it’s generally OK to accept it on face value.
It’s a bit of a cliche, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that someone can do 2-3 hours of cardio a day; eat only 800 to 1000 calories, and not lose weight is extraordinary. To back up a claim like that, you would need to do a study where the subject was carefully monitored with doubly labeled water or confined to a live-in laboratory.
Did he personally monitor these people he is describing?
Most of the people that get to that level are bodybuilding competitors. If the population weren’t specified, I’d agree with your suspicion, since it is pretty well demonstrated that most weight loss issues are related to inaccurate food reporting/consumption. However, folks that are serious about bodybuilding are pretty meticulous about following diet plans, and aren’t strangers to hard work, denying physical urges, and doing really uncomfortable stuff for their sport. I’d agree that a typical obese person is almost certainly just underreporting their calorie intake.
There is no metabolic ward evidence for this, if that’s the standard you’re after. Layne hasn’t had anyone do this sort of routine because he thinks its incredibly harmful for long term success in bodybuilding, so he hasn’t personally seen this. However, he has coached those whose prior coaches did this, and he worked to repair the metabolism.
Respectfully, that’s not even strong evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence. It’s just hearsay.
I would be willing to bet serious money that any healthy adult, carefully monitored, who did 2-3 hours of cardio a day and ate only 800 to 1000 calories would either lose weight or (far more likely) end the experiment because because he literally felt like he was starving to death.
By the way, I was reading the other day about a study where professional nutritionists were assessed to see how well they reported their calories. And they under-reported significantly.
shrug Metabolic damage is a real problem in the bodybuilding community. I don’t have any stock in the exact numbers being there; 800 calories and 3 hours of cardio per day is not much worse than 1200 calories and 1 hour of cardio per day. Both indicate a depressed metabolism and an inefficient (if not counterproductive) weight management strategy.
I’d agree that 800 calories and 3 hours of cardio per day and constant weight is extremely unlikely hypothesis vs. misrepresenting food intake or activity level. I don’t think it’s impossible that a person can adapt themselves to that. Some coaches prescribe this caloric intake and activity level.
To see how plausible it was, I hypothesized a 25 year old 5′2″ 120lb female aspiring bodybuilder at around 11%BF. This RMR calculator puts the basic metabolism at 1,200-1,500 calories per day. 2-3 hours of low impact aerobics gives 662-993 calories according to this calculator. Assuming cardio is done 5 times per week, this is an average of either 1,670-1,972(2 hours cardio) or 1,900-2,200 (3 hours cardio) calories calculated to maintain weight.
The most extreme situation (2,200 calorie maintenance and 800 calories eaten = 1,400 calorie deficit) seems obviously impossible. The other bound (1,670 calorie − 800 calories eating = 870 calorie deficit) seems more possible to me. I’ve personally had my maintenance calorie intake down to about 1,500 (and i was meticulously measuring everything), which is ~700 calories less than calculators would have predicted given my activity level.
And they under-reported significantly.
Not surprised. Virtually everyone underreports (unless they’re chronically underweight, and then they overreport). That’s why I included the bit about Layne’s personal success (ie what he does really works for himself) and coaching success (ie what he says works for his clients). He practices what he preaches, and his results speak for his methods.
Metabolic damage is a real problem in the bodybuilding community.
Why is it a problem to “run cool” as I have described it? (ETA: Other than what you said above)
By the way, since you disapprove of the misuse of language, I would ask that you demonstrate actual harm from what you describe as “metabolic damage” or use a less loaded phrase.
ETA: I understand that someone who is “running cool” will get less micronutrients, all else being equal, than someone who is not. I also understand that someone who is “running cool” will get to eat less ice cream than someone who is not.
But I don’t see how any reasonable person could see these things as harm. First of all, as someone else alluded to, there is no a priori reason to think that more micronutrients is better. Second, even if more micronutrients is better, it’s easy enough to get micronutrients from foods which are low in calories. Third, having to eat a bit less ice cream does not seem harmful to me.
In short, I think you are misusing the word “damage.”
The other bound (1,670 calorie − 800 calories eating = 870 calorie deficit) seems more possible to me.
I would be willing to bet serious money that any 25 year old 5′2″ 120 pound female aspiring body builder who burns 600-900 calories a day doing low impact aerobics and who eats in the 800-1000 calorie range will not be 120 pounds for very long.
Virtually everyone underreports
Yes, even bodybuilding competitors. As well as anyone who claims to be unable to lose weight through calorie restriction.
Why is it a problem to “run cool” as I have described it?
It’s not. It’s a natural adaptation to a caloric deficit. If you think that’s what I’m arguing, then we’ve got a pretty big misunderstanding.
To make sure we’re talking about the same things, I’d like to clarify my understanding of “running cool.” You say that a person’s average calorie intake per day for weight maintenance is (for example) 2000 calories. If you eat 1900 calories for a week, you won’t lose the 1/5th of a pound you’d expect. Your metabolism might shift down to about 1950 per day, and you’d only lose 1/10th of a pound. Likewise, if you eat 2100 calories for a week, you won’t gain 1/5th of a pound. You’d fidget more, put off more body heat, etc and maybe gain 1/10th of a pound. Is that about right?
The extension that I’d make is that eventually the body completely adapts to the new calorie level, such that 1900 calories no longer results in any weight loss at all. It’s the new maintenance point. This is the downregulation I am talking about.
If our hypothetical-person started with a 500 calorie deficit, they’d likely get about 450 calories per day of weight loss and 50 calories of metabolic downregulation, or running cool. Eventually, 1,500 calories a day becomes the maintenance point, and you have to eat less food to continue to lose weight.
I would ask that you demonstrate actual harm from what you describe as “metabolic damage” or use a less loaded phrase.
Did you watch the videos or just turn them off after the extraordinary claim? The videos pretty clearly explain what happens to cause this situation. It’s not like a person would start off eating 800 calories, 2 hours of cardio, and not lose weight. The situation develops over a great deal of time. A person would start off with 2,000 calorie maintenance, and then eat 1,800 calories to lose weight. Eventually, fat loss stalls, and calorie intake has to go down to 1,600. Eventually, that stalls, and calories have to go down again. This repeats until you’re at a very low calorie intake level, such that the only way you can lose weight is by going into the actual starvation mode.
Does that sound good to you? I can see the benefit from an evolutionary standpoint to have the ability to survive that sort of intake with that energy output. But it isn’t something I’d want for myself, and it’s counterproductive to the goal of ‘losing fat’.
Fine, then please stop referring to it as “damage.” It’s not damage, it’s a perfectly normal and healthy way to live and it’s probably healthier than running hot.
The extension that I’d make is that eventually the body completely adapts to the new calorie level, such that 1900 calories no longer results in any weight loss at all. It’s the new maintenance point. This is the downregulation I am talking about.
That may very well be true.
Did you watch the videos or just turn them off after the extraordinary claim?
Turned them off.
This repeats until you’re at a very low calorie intake level, such that the only way you can lose weight is by going into the actual starvation mode.
I don’t believe this either. While there may exist some people with bona fide health problems whose bodies break down muscle and organs instead of fat deposits, as far as I know that’s extremely rare. Also I am extremely skeptical that calorie deprivation could cause such a problem.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you have failed to point demonstrate any actual harm in people with “damaged” metabolisms. So please stop misusing the word “damage”
Fine, then please stop referring to it as “damage.” It’s not damage, it’s a perfectly normal and healthy way to live and it’s probably healthier than running hot.
Sigh. Again, “running cool” is not “metabolic damage.” I’m not going to explain it again, as you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to listen and consider what I’m saying or looking at the links I’ve provided.
Yes it is, using your own definition. And you have failed to demonstrate any actual harm which comes from “metabolic damage” So please stop misusing the word “damage”
I’m not going to explain it again, as you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to listen and consider what I’m saying or looking at the links I’ve provided.
Nonsense, I’ve considered your argument carefully. As far as the links go, it’s not my responsibility to wade through an hour’s worth of youtube videos looking for evidence supporting or explanations of your point.
The fact is that you’ve made a couple extraordinary claims and you refuse to provide strong evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence to support those claims. You insist on misusing the word “damage” even while professing a distaste for the misuse of words. The problem isn’t my unwillingness to consider your point; the problem is your unwillingness to consider the flaws in your own point.
It depends on the nutrient in question. Vitamin D has significant benefits when you take 5,000IU, which is 8.3 times the US RDA for adults (600IU). Creatine has benefits with 5g of supplementation; to get that from food would require 2lbs of red meat every day.
If I were to wager, I’d say that most people are consuming too few micronutrients, and would benefit from supplementation. or eating higher quality real food. Very few people are maxing out their nutrition.
No, not really. Vitamin D in particular (like all fat-soluble vitamins) is not hard to overdose on.
most people are consuming too few micronutrients
I’d probably phrase it like this: almost every person will benefit from increased consumption of some set of micronutrients. But the issue is that this set is different for different people.
Take iron as an example. Some people need more iron in their diets. But some people need less. Can you recommend more iron to some person X not knowing anything about him or her? No, you can’t.
Vitamin D is actually pretty difficult to overconsume (at least, accidentally—if you wanted to suicide by Vitamin D, it’d be a long and annoying process). According to mayoclinic, you’d need to consume around 50,000IU daily for several months to start getting into Vitamin D toxicity.
One obvious question to ask is, what subtypes of fat (saturation, chain length, etc) are in the triglycerides the adipose tissues are storing? That is, take an adipose tissue biopsy, separate out the triglycerides then separate those into free fatty acids, and measure fractions of saturated, monounsaturated, omega-3/6/9, etc. fats, so that if one subtype has abnormally high concentration you can look at why it might not be metabolized properly. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a standard test, so it might be hard to find someone to do it.
How would you study this without poking at it?
That’s a moderately fair question. One answer is in vitro—start with blood tests, and possibly with examining fat cells.
Another possibility is a different sort of poking. Dietary changes should be designed to be experiments for finding out what’s going on rather than aimed directly at fat loss.
I’d really like to see some work on why Eliezer gets so knocked out from missing a meal or two. Frequent blood tests? I have a notion there’s something in the situation about his liver, which I believe is in charge of maintaining blood sugar in the short run.
Glucagon causes the liver to convert stored glycogen into glucose, which is released into the bloodstream, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s got something wrong with that pathway.
(Yay for the well-stocked subconscious supplemented by google. I thought the liver produced glucagon, and I was wrong, but wikipedia turned up the information.)
Is that really so unusual?
I think so. I get hungry and unhappy, but not knocked out.
There seem to be people (not a high proportion) who forget to eat—they keep on going for two or three days and then realize that the reason they’re feeling bad is that they need food.
Would you mind sharing your current weight/diet history?
Current weight 173 lb. I’m 4′ 11″.
I’ve done almost no dieting. My weight gradually drifted upwards to 184 pounds from about 125 in the 1970s. I’ve slowly cut back on simple carbs over the years as I found they were bad for me—a box of 8 Entemann’s large chocolate covered donuts eaten in the course of a day would lead to two or three days of being knocked out, including an internal monologue of “I don’t care”.
The current weight loss seems to be related to reading some Eric Franklin (probably in his Relax Your Neck, Liberate Your Shoulders) about how the ribs connect to the sternum, combined with imagery for relaxation.
Correction: It was actually Franklin’s Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery − 2nd Edition.
When I did that, I realized that I was holding my shoulders up all the time, and let them come down. This seemed to cause me to feel less anxious, and to my surprise, I found I was much less interested in eating when I wasn’t hungry.
Previously, my hunger-satiety spectrum was hungry, not hungry but food is interesting, full. This didn’t mean I was eating all the time, but I was eating somewhat more than my gut wanted. I didn’t binge because I don’t have that sort of pain tolerance. Quite suddenly, I was spending a fair amount of time in a state of “comfortable and definitely don’t want food”. Sometimes I would hit a wall while eating.
Comfortable and don’t want food is more common if I completely avoid simple carbs.
Thanks for sharing. Anyway, here is my hypothesis which is the result of fairly intense thought and internet research over the past couple years.
Although we talk about peoples’ metabolic rate as if it is a specific number, e.g. 1866 Kcal/day, the reality is that there is a range. If you eat towards the top of the range, you might gain a very small amount of weight but for the most part your body will adjust by running hotter. On the other hand, if you eat towards the bottom of the range, you will lose little or no weight but your body will adjust by running cooler. People sometimes refer to the cooler situation as “starvation mode,” but I think this is an overstatement. “Starvation mode,” i.e. eating at the bottom of your metabolic range is completely normal and probably healthier that eating at the top. Common sense says that revving your system hour after hour, day after day, puts more wear and tear on it.
Looking at your typical American in his late 20s or 30s who is slowly drifting up in terms of weight, one can infer that he must be eating at the top of his metabolic range—otherwise he would not be gaining weight. The upshot is that he actually has a very fast metabolism at that time. Which goes against the conventional wisdom but when you think about it, it makes sense.
If such a person suddenly starts fasting, his metabolism will eventually adjust but the adjustment probably takes a few hours or days. In the meantime, this person will quickly burn through most of the readily available energy in his system and he will feel terrible pretty fast.
The other thing which is going on for a lot of people is mild addiction to certain foods. i.e. there are certain foods which produce a rush of good feeling (a bit like smoking a cigarette but less intense) followed later by withdrawal symptoms. Probably this is also part of the reason why it feels pretty terrible for some people to miss a meal or two.
Of course I don’t know EY’s individual situation that well, but I do think that it’s completely normal for a lot of people to feel knocked out if they miss a couple meals. If you eat at the top of your metabolic range for years, the feeling of running hot seems normal and “starvation mode” seems pretty scary. But in my opinion, what’s normal (in the sense of doing what your body is designed to do) is running cool. Starvation mode = normal mode.
Since your weight has been steady and/or drifting downwards, probably you are eating more towards the bottom of your metabolic range. Thus it’s much easier for you to miss a meal than it otherwise would be.
Anyway, that’s my hypothesis. I fully admit that I’m not an expert when it comes to diet, weight loss, etc. What I am saying is based purely on my own reasoning, research, and self-experimentation.
Your hypothesis is interesting, and to a certain extent my personal experience mimics it. When I’m eating to gain weight, I tend to be more active and fidgety, and I also tend to be warmer. When I’m eating to lose weight, I tend to be more sedentary and still, and I tend to be cooler. Yet more evidence for bulking in the winter and cutting in the summer. I think it’s possible to alter your metabolism to use more calories and still maintain weight, if you do it in a controlled manner (and increase activity as well). It’s certainly possible to alter your metabolism to use less-and-less calories via constant caloric restriction and excess low intensity steady state cardio.
“Starvation mode” is what happens when your body is breaking down organ tissue and muscle for energy. This doesn’t happen until a long time without any food; how much depends on how much fat a person is carrying. Check this study out, an obese patient went over a year without food (they had supplements for essential nutrients) and was healthy at the end of it.
I think you are probably right, but what would you be trying to achieve in doing so?
Well it depends on how you define the phrase “starvation mode.” I regularly hear people assert that their weight loss efforts (and other peoples’) have stalled or plateaued because of “starvation mode.” From the context, it seems that they are referring to the “running cool” which I have described and not something extreme like breaking down organ and muscle for energy.
The more food you eat, the more micronutrients you take in. If you have a higher metabolism, you’ll get more micronutrients and still maintain weight. Plus, you get to eat more ice cream. If you previously damaged your metabolism (and I’d call a 1200cal maintenance ‘damaged’), then raising your metabolism will be good for you.
I mean, if you’re using it wrong, sure. “Starvation mode” is largely another bullshit meme propagated by the fitness/nutrition crowd, like ‘toning’ and ‘heavy weights make you bulky’. Fact is, you’ll downregulate your metabolism by eating less, so eventually, you have to eat even less to break the plateau. This isn’t starvation mode.
This doesn’t seem like the ideal way of optimizing your micronutrient consumption.
I’m not sure that makes much of a difference. To illustrate, consider a strapping young man who can eat a pint of ice cream a day and stay in energy balance. Compare him with a petite girl who can only eat half a pint a day of ice cream and stay in balance. Does the man derive significantly more pleasure in life from ice cream eating than the girl? I doubt it.
Well how would you define “damaged” and what does it mean?
No need for a semantic debate, what’s commonly referred to as “starvation mode,” which I have referred to as “running cool,” is perfectly normal and healthy in my non-professional opinion.
Perhaps not. Supplementation seems like an easy solution, but it’s been shown multiple times that you get more benefit from micronutrients from food vs micronutrients from supplementation.
If you don’t care about more ice cream, then FINE. More for me.
Layne Norton has a few good videos on the subject. “Damage” refers to the metabolism being downregulated to the point that a person can eat very low calories, do tons of exercise, and still not lose weight/fat.
I know it’s a pointless crusade, but I really dislike terms being misused. Starvation is a very real thing, and when the word is misused, it conflates “Starvation causing muscle/organ loss” with “Metabolism is downregulated,” You absolutely need to avoid going into starvation, but downregulating metabolism is an inevitable effect of losing weight.
The more obvious solution is to tweak your consumption of foods which contain lots of micronutrients compared to their calorie content. i.e. eat your vegetables.
What I care about is eating satisfaction. It’s not obvious to me that more ice cream necessarily means more eating satisfaction.
I would call that “running cool” and in my non-professional opinion, it’s perfectly normal and healthy. And if such a person wants to lose further fat, they need only reduce their calorie intake further. By the way, I started listening to the video, and I simply don’t believe that a person can do 2-3 hours a day of cardio, eat 800 to 1000 calories a day, and not lose weight. I think any person who makes such a claim is lying about his food intake.
Fine, but if you have a semantic nitpick I think it’s good practice to label it as such. Here’s what I said at the beginning:
Layne is a PhD in nutrition science, record holding powerlifter/bodybuilder, and renowned coach. So he has academic credentials, personal success, and has successfully helped others. There are very few people in nutrition that you can generally trust, and he’s one of them. So when he says something, it’s generally OK to accept it on face value.
Fair point. I’ll do that from now on. “Starvation mode” is just one of those phrases that trigger an immediate “No, you’re using that word wrong, stop it!!” reactions (and yes, I know about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, but I’m not a linguist, and I have an interest in phrasing having consistent meanings!)
It’s a bit of a cliche, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim that someone can do 2-3 hours of cardio a day; eat only 800 to 1000 calories, and not lose weight is extraordinary. To back up a claim like that, you would need to do a study where the subject was carefully monitored with doubly labeled water or confined to a live-in laboratory.
Did he personally monitor these people he is describing?
Most of the people that get to that level are bodybuilding competitors. If the population weren’t specified, I’d agree with your suspicion, since it is pretty well demonstrated that most weight loss issues are related to inaccurate food reporting/consumption. However, folks that are serious about bodybuilding are pretty meticulous about following diet plans, and aren’t strangers to hard work, denying physical urges, and doing really uncomfortable stuff for their sport. I’d agree that a typical obese person is almost certainly just underreporting their calorie intake.
There is no metabolic ward evidence for this, if that’s the standard you’re after. Layne hasn’t had anyone do this sort of routine because he thinks its incredibly harmful for long term success in bodybuilding, so he hasn’t personally seen this. However, he has coached those whose prior coaches did this, and he worked to repair the metabolism.
Respectfully, that’s not even strong evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence. It’s just hearsay.
I would be willing to bet serious money that any healthy adult, carefully monitored, who did 2-3 hours of cardio a day and ate only 800 to 1000 calories would either lose weight or (far more likely) end the experiment because because he literally felt like he was starving to death.
By the way, I was reading the other day about a study where professional nutritionists were assessed to see how well they reported their calories. And they under-reported significantly.
shrug Metabolic damage is a real problem in the bodybuilding community. I don’t have any stock in the exact numbers being there; 800 calories and 3 hours of cardio per day is not much worse than 1200 calories and 1 hour of cardio per day. Both indicate a depressed metabolism and an inefficient (if not counterproductive) weight management strategy.
I’d agree that 800 calories and 3 hours of cardio per day and constant weight is extremely unlikely hypothesis vs. misrepresenting food intake or activity level. I don’t think it’s impossible that a person can adapt themselves to that. Some coaches prescribe this caloric intake and activity level.
To see how plausible it was, I hypothesized a 25 year old 5′2″ 120lb female aspiring bodybuilder at around 11%BF. This RMR calculator puts the basic metabolism at 1,200-1,500 calories per day. 2-3 hours of low impact aerobics gives 662-993 calories according to this calculator. Assuming cardio is done 5 times per week, this is an average of either 1,670-1,972(2 hours cardio) or 1,900-2,200 (3 hours cardio) calories calculated to maintain weight.
The most extreme situation (2,200 calorie maintenance and 800 calories eaten = 1,400 calorie deficit) seems obviously impossible. The other bound (1,670 calorie − 800 calories eating = 870 calorie deficit) seems more possible to me. I’ve personally had my maintenance calorie intake down to about 1,500 (and i was meticulously measuring everything), which is ~700 calories less than calculators would have predicted given my activity level.
Not surprised. Virtually everyone underreports (unless they’re chronically underweight, and then they overreport). That’s why I included the bit about Layne’s personal success (ie what he does really works for himself) and coaching success (ie what he says works for his clients). He practices what he preaches, and his results speak for his methods.
Why is it a problem to “run cool” as I have described it? (ETA: Other than what you said above)
By the way, since you disapprove of the misuse of language, I would ask that you demonstrate actual harm from what you describe as “metabolic damage” or use a less loaded phrase.
ETA: I understand that someone who is “running cool” will get less micronutrients, all else being equal, than someone who is not. I also understand that someone who is “running cool” will get to eat less ice cream than someone who is not.
But I don’t see how any reasonable person could see these things as harm. First of all, as someone else alluded to, there is no a priori reason to think that more micronutrients is better. Second, even if more micronutrients is better, it’s easy enough to get micronutrients from foods which are low in calories. Third, having to eat a bit less ice cream does not seem harmful to me.
In short, I think you are misusing the word “damage.”
I would be willing to bet serious money that any 25 year old 5′2″ 120 pound female aspiring body builder who burns 600-900 calories a day doing low impact aerobics and who eats in the 800-1000 calorie range will not be 120 pounds for very long.
Yes, even bodybuilding competitors. As well as anyone who claims to be unable to lose weight through calorie restriction.
It’s not. It’s a natural adaptation to a caloric deficit. If you think that’s what I’m arguing, then we’ve got a pretty big misunderstanding.
To make sure we’re talking about the same things, I’d like to clarify my understanding of “running cool.” You say that a person’s average calorie intake per day for weight maintenance is (for example) 2000 calories. If you eat 1900 calories for a week, you won’t lose the 1/5th of a pound you’d expect. Your metabolism might shift down to about 1950 per day, and you’d only lose 1/10th of a pound. Likewise, if you eat 2100 calories for a week, you won’t gain 1/5th of a pound. You’d fidget more, put off more body heat, etc and maybe gain 1/10th of a pound. Is that about right?
The extension that I’d make is that eventually the body completely adapts to the new calorie level, such that 1900 calories no longer results in any weight loss at all. It’s the new maintenance point. This is the downregulation I am talking about.
If our hypothetical-person started with a 500 calorie deficit, they’d likely get about 450 calories per day of weight loss and 50 calories of metabolic downregulation, or running cool. Eventually, 1,500 calories a day becomes the maintenance point, and you have to eat less food to continue to lose weight.
Did you watch the videos or just turn them off after the extraordinary claim? The videos pretty clearly explain what happens to cause this situation. It’s not like a person would start off eating 800 calories, 2 hours of cardio, and not lose weight. The situation develops over a great deal of time. A person would start off with 2,000 calorie maintenance, and then eat 1,800 calories to lose weight. Eventually, fat loss stalls, and calorie intake has to go down to 1,600. Eventually, that stalls, and calories have to go down again. This repeats until you’re at a very low calorie intake level, such that the only way you can lose weight is by going into the actual starvation mode.
Does that sound good to you? I can see the benefit from an evolutionary standpoint to have the ability to survive that sort of intake with that energy output. But it isn’t something I’d want for myself, and it’s counterproductive to the goal of ‘losing fat’.
Fine, then please stop referring to it as “damage.” It’s not damage, it’s a perfectly normal and healthy way to live and it’s probably healthier than running hot.
That may very well be true.
Turned them off.
I don’t believe this either. While there may exist some people with bona fide health problems whose bodies break down muscle and organs instead of fat deposits, as far as I know that’s extremely rare. Also I am extremely skeptical that calorie deprivation could cause such a problem.
Anyway, the bottom line is that you have failed to point demonstrate any actual harm in people with “damaged” metabolisms. So please stop misusing the word “damage”
Sigh. Again, “running cool” is not “metabolic damage.” I’m not going to explain it again, as you’ve demonstrated an unwillingness to listen and consider what I’m saying or looking at the links I’ve provided.
Yes it is, using your own definition. And you have failed to demonstrate any actual harm which comes from “metabolic damage” So please stop misusing the word “damage”
Nonsense, I’ve considered your argument carefully. As far as the links go, it’s not my responsibility to wade through an hour’s worth of youtube videos looking for evidence supporting or explanations of your point.
The fact is that you’ve made a couple extraordinary claims and you refuse to provide strong evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence to support those claims. You insist on misusing the word “damage” even while professing a distaste for the misuse of words. The problem isn’t my unwillingness to consider your point; the problem is your unwillingness to consider the flaws in your own point.
Bodybuilding competitors generally don’t do much cardio (aka long-duration low-intensity workouts), as far as I know, not 2-3 hours a day.
That’s not much evidence, it’s basically “my old coach starved me and my BF% didn’t go down enough” kinda thing...
I don’t think micronutrients fall under the “the more the better” category.
For all nutrients, micro and macro, there is an optimal range with a minimum and a maximum.
It depends on the nutrient in question. Vitamin D has significant benefits when you take 5,000IU, which is 8.3 times the US RDA for adults (600IU). Creatine has benefits with 5g of supplementation; to get that from food would require 2lbs of red meat every day.
If I were to wager, I’d say that most people are consuming too few micronutrients, and would benefit from supplementation. or eating higher quality real food. Very few people are maxing out their nutrition.
No, not really. Vitamin D in particular (like all fat-soluble vitamins) is not hard to overdose on.
I’d probably phrase it like this: almost every person will benefit from increased consumption of some set of micronutrients. But the issue is that this set is different for different people.
Take iron as an example. Some people need more iron in their diets. But some people need less. Can you recommend more iron to some person X not knowing anything about him or her? No, you can’t.
Vitamin D is actually pretty difficult to overconsume (at least, accidentally—if you wanted to suicide by Vitamin D, it’d be a long and annoying process). According to mayoclinic, you’d need to consume around 50,000IU daily for several months to start getting into Vitamin D toxicity.
I completely agree with the rest of your post.
One obvious question to ask is, what subtypes of fat (saturation, chain length, etc) are in the triglycerides the adipose tissues are storing? That is, take an adipose tissue biopsy, separate out the triglycerides then separate those into free fatty acids, and measure fractions of saturated, monounsaturated, omega-3/6/9, etc. fats, so that if one subtype has abnormally high concentration you can look at why it might not be metabolized properly. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a standard test, so it might be hard to find someone to do it.