Starvation Mode
Welcome to The Spotter!
I am Nolan Vannata. This newsletter is a part of my mission to make health, fitness, and nutrition content that is evidence-based, digestible, practical, and accessible.
What is “starvation mode”
“Starvation mode” isn’t a real medical term, so the definition will change depending on who you ask. A common belief of starvation mode is the idea that you can eat so few calories that your body adapts and compensates by lowering your metabolism to a point where you actually gain weight.
This is false. Your body cannot create mass or energy out of nothing.
Studies show (check out my article below) that people tend to think they are eating fewer calories than they actually are — they think they are eating a certain amount, when in reality they are eating 500-1000 calories more. To them, it does not make sense that they are not losing weight, so “starvation mode” seems like a very plausible explanation for this.
The body can adapt when you eat more or less — adaptive thermogenesis is the change in metabolism as a result of eating fewer or more calories. However, your body will never adapt to a point where you will start to gain weight from eating too little. There is a minimum amount of energy required to beat your heart, breath, think, and maintain body temperature. You know… just “being alive”.
How does adaptive thermogenesis work?
As you start to eat fewer calories, your body compensates by burning fewer calories. This is a starvation-prevention mechanism that was a lot more useful before grocery stores and fast food existed.
The inverse is also true. As you eat more, you will burn more calories. Your body notices an abundance of energy and says, “Look at all this energy. We can get so much done with this!”
Most of these changes in metabolism are from non-exercise activity thermogenesis, which refers to the energy expended during non-structured physical activity. This includes things like walking from room to room, sitting with tall posture, fidgeting, and typing an article about adaptive thermogenesis.
Why do some people seem more resistant to weight loss?
The degree to which individuals respond to underfeeding and overfeeding varies massively. In the graph below, you can see the average response listed on the right side (kcal/d = “calories per day). Each number on the x-axis shows individual subjects with their unique changes in metabolism in response to calorie deficits or surpluses on the y-axis.
The top graph is a change in resting energy expenditure, and the bottom graph is a change in activity energy expenditure. The red dots represent the change in metabolic rate when eating 50% less than maintenance-calorie needs for three weeks, and the white dots represent metabolic changes after eating 50% over maintenance-calorie needs for 2 weeks.
This graph demonstrates part of the reason why some people have a harder time losing weight than others.
Let’s take a closer look at the graph above:
Subject 2 eats 50% fewer calories and their metabolism compensates by massive margins, making it much harder for them to lose weight.
Subject 18 sees almost no change in energy expenditure when they eat 50% fewer calories. They will have a much easier time losing weight compared to subject 2.
On average, subjects burned about 200 calories fewer when they ate 50% of their normal intake. However, some subjects saw no change, and some burned up to 1,000 calories less!!!
In short, some people are simply more resistant to weight loss. This is not to say that weight loss is impossible for some. Rather, their progression might be slower than others.
Why can some people eat whatever they want and not gain weight?
As mentioned above, it seems that most of the metabolic changes in response to under or overfeeding come from non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). This phenomenon is explained in the article, “Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis in Human Energy Homeostasis”. The authors of the article state:
“…the change in NEAT was directly predictive of the individual vulnerability or resistance to body fat accumulation.”
During overfeeding, our bodies are more inclined to fidget, sit with taller posture, and get up and move around, but the degree of this response is highly variable between individuals.
In the 1999 study, “Role of nonexercise activity thermogenesis in resistance to fat gain in humans”, the researchers had 16 subjects eat 1,000 calories over their maintenance needs. As you see in the graphs below, some subjects hardly gained any weight even after eating 1,000 extra calories per day for 8 weeks!!! In graph C, you can see that those who spontaneously increased NEAT levels were significantly more resistant to weight gain.
Some people will literally fidget their way out of weight gain.
Practical takeaways
This article is not just information. It’s awareness, clarity, and truth. Some of you will simply have an easier time adjusting your weight than others, and some of you will have to be more strategic and move at a slower pace.
In a recent article, I spoke about the importance of setting expectations during weight loss. Knowing how your body adapts to eating less is critical when setting realistic timelines.
Being aware of your body’s adaptation to eating more or less is something to put into your strengths or weaknesses bucket. If it’s a strength, great! If not, find some other strengths. I’m sure you have plenty.
What’s next? Targeting Specific Back Muscles
Skip the learning curve, get a coach.
Picture this: You are in a body that looks and feels good, BUT… you enjoy the food you eat, and your workouts are simple and don’t leave you destroyed.
You deserve better than fad diets and ineffective, overcomplicated workouts. If you are looking to build muscle, lose body fat, or both, schedule a call with me by clicking this link.
We’ll use this call to see if you’re a good fit for my program, and you can ask any questions you have about the online coaching processes.
For more information, visit thespottercoaching.com.
Thoughts on intentionally trying to build the habit of fidgeting to expedite weight loss? Is it plausible, or am I just making it up?