Meal Timing, Thermal Effect of Food, CICO, and ‘Starvation Mode’ – Real or BS?

“If you don’t eat enough calories, your body will go into ‘starvation mode’ and it will hang onto fat, and you will gain weight.”

“You should eat six small meals instead of three to lose weight.”

I’m sure you have heard these before. 

The girl from accounting says them. 

I used to say it myself. Though I had no proof, it sounded like it made sense.  I mean, our bodies do respond to stress in times of crisis – so surely it is designed to literally ‘stall’ metabolic processing so that we don’t die?

This blog post is all about popular things people say to justify why losing weight is complicated and futile.

Spoiler alert: It’s not. But let’s look at the first item on our list:

Thermic Effect of Food

First, let’s look at TEF – the thermic effect of food or the amount of energy expenditure above the basal metabolic rate due to the cost of processing food for use and storage. (Whew – that was a mouthful!) The TEF averages at about 10% of a person’s caloric intake and varies based on macro groups – i.e. dietary fat is easier to process than protein. For example, when you consume 100 calories of protein, your body will only provide energy for 70-75 of those calories, whereas if you were to eat 100 calories from fat, your body will provide energy for around 97 of those calories.

via GIPHY

Meal Timing

Then comes the ‘How many meals/times should I eat per day’ discussion. There is much speculation (and misinformation) about how much and how often a person eats effecting their overall metabolism and weight loss efforts.

Again, something I believed, but through personal experience have discovered is also not true.

That’s where academic and scientific studies can help us to separate fact from fiction.

A recent study conducted by the University of Ottawa found that increasing meal frequency does not promote more significant weight loss when observing the weight loss progress between two groups of obese men and women.  Each group was administered either a high meal frequency (3 meals and 3 snacks per day) or a low meal frequency (3 meals per day, no snacks) diet throughout eight weeks.  Each group was instructed to complete the study under the same amount of energy restriction (total calories consumed). 

So, if eating three, four or six meals timed throughout the day is what works best for you – go for it, but know that there is no one hard and fast rule when it comes to the number of meals you eat per day.

What it really comes down to is our next item, calories.

CICO (Calories In, Calories Out)

Many people don’t believe this, but when it comes to weight loss, gain or homeostasis—it’s calories in/calories out (CICO). 

That is the rule, but of course, some exceptions and variables make the concept not 100% foolproof. An example of an exception would be in individuals with underlying metabolic and hormonal conditions and those who are not addressing the issue through medical and/or dietary means. And an example of variables that impact CICO is the thermic effect of food concept explained above

Hormonal conditions can prevent weight loss or even cause excessive weight loss or weight gain. Ultimately a combination of medication and diet working in harmony (for example, a low GI or ketogenic diet for individuals diagnosed with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome to combat insulin resistance) along with a suitable caloric intake can help to regulate this issue. In some cases, without the need for prescription medication.  Notice, calories still continue to be a factor in this situation despite a change in dominant macros levels.

Now, it is true that when you reduce calories (and lose weight), the number of calories the body requires will decrease as well.  I think this is where people cling to ideas like ‘starvation mode’ and ‘long-term weight loss is unsustainable’.

Here’s the deal: If you change your lifestyle (i.e. lower your caloric intake and increase your physical activity) and then after reaching your goal go right back to eating the way you did before and not exercising – you’re going to gain that weight again and probably more. That doesn’t mean your efforts didn’t work – it means you stopped being consistent and didn’t adjust your lifestyle accordingly. Many people go through this when they don’t address the underlying issues they have with food. You can read about whether or not you have a toxic relationship with food here.

What we’re talking about are called total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) and adaptive thermogenesis

TDEE is comprised of both resting (BMR – Basal Metabolic Rate) and non-resting energy expenditure (the combination of exercise energy expenditure, TEF, and non-exercise activity thermogenesis.)

Adaptive thermogenesis refers to the underfeeding-associated fall in resting and non-resting energy expenditure (REE, non-REE) – aka eating less than the body requires at rest vs when the body is active. 

Simply stated:  If a person eats fewer calories than their body requires at rest, they will create a surplus and their body will lose weight.  The more active this individual is, the more calories they will burn and used in tandem with a reduced calorie diet, will potentially create more significant weight loss results.

As the body reduces in mass, the caloric requirement will also drop — and as this happens cutting calories further will adjust the body to continue to lose weight or adjusting/increasing caloric intake to create an energy equilibrium, which will result in maintaining the loss of weight.   This is, of course, simplistic and can vary for issues such as hormonal imbalances and body composition variances. 

‘Starvation Mode’ (and that famous weight loss reality show study)

A few years ago, a study conducted by the Journal of Obesity, set out to measure long-term changes in resting metabolic rate and body composition in The Biggest Loser contestants.  

When published, I was caught in an 18-month period of time where I was reading all of Dr Linda Bacon’s research and books and immersing myself in the HAES community. As a result of this interest, I was very taken in by this study as I, as a fitness and nutrition professional, had found the show to be problematic in many ways. ( I am in NO way saying that I had lost my mind to believe any of the research Dr Bacon has done, but I have since changed my mind about some of it – but that’s for another post.) 

In the Obesity study, it showed how the contestants of The Biggest Loser had regained the weight loss on the show and damaged their metabolisms in the process. 

Okay, this is something that I have dealt with when working with clients who want to lose weight.  Most people want it off, like yesterday, and think that cutting out entire food groups or creating huge calorie deficits every day is the only way.  And while those methods may help them lose weight – rapidly – they will likely not keep it off, which is what this study proves.  However, the deception is that sustainable weight loss is impossible for obese individuals and that is not true.

“Diets don’t work.”  Okay, no they don’t when they are ‘crash diets’ or unsustainable and highly restrictive.

Hollywood juice diets, master cleanses and ‘detox’ – oh, how I LOATHE – pills will help you lose water weight in the form of excessive bowel movements and carbohydrate restriction. 

Cutting back 500-1000 calories per day and adding in 150 minutes of cardio per week will help most individuals lose 1-2 pounds per week and create a lifestyle (and weight loss) that is sustainable.

The difference between a person like a contestant on The Biggest Loser and an individual who decides to cut 500-1000 calories per day and incorporate more physical activity into their lifestyle is the rate and severity of the weight loss between their starting point, the timeframe and the overall amount of weight loss. 

In the case of TBL contestants, they were restricting calories at a severe level while also performing hours and hours of physical activity per day; this is the epitome of ‘crash dieting’!


And while it may seem like a contradiction saying ‘starvation mode’ isn’t a thing, the following example is one of those exceptions I addressed earlier in this post:
When a person who is 100+ pounds overweight goes from eating 4000 calories per day to consuming 1000 calories per day overnight, they will create a 3000-calorie daily deficit, which over a week amounts to a 21,000-calorie deficit or roughly a six-pound (2.7 kg) weight loss. 
Now add 5-7 hours of physical activity daily on top of that, and we’re talking an additional 1500-2000 exercise energy expenditure deficit in addition to the caloric deficit, so we’re talking something like 35,000 calories, or 10 pounds (4.5 kg) per week. 

In addition to TBL contestants severe deficit and exercise energy expenditure, we could also talk about the levels of cortisol, ghrelin and leptin that become impacted by the stress of limiting calories and performing that level of physical activity seven days per week.  Messing with stress and hunger-controlling hormones will make the body physically crave food because, at that point, it is in a state of crisis.  That is incredibly unhealthy, unrealistic and unsustainable.  That is what you do in an extreme competition or game show or …oh, wait, that’s what The Biggest Loser was. 

via GIPHY

I’ve heard people in support of Dr Bacon’s work say that The Biggest Loser study confirms everything they’ve said about how they cannot lose weight and that their experiences with restriction caused disordered eating and therefore they are fat, aren’t going to apologize for it or participate in diet culture when it is clearly futile. 

I am not arguing that weight loss is challenging – especially when the starting weight is 100 pounds or more above what a healthy (and I’m using the BMI chart very loosely here) for their height should be.  Weight loss is a simple concept, but something challenging to put into action and those reasons are more about the emotional component of food and a person’s relationship with itespecially when that emotional component is a symptom of trauma.

Weight loss is a simple concept, but something challenging to put into action and those reasons are more about the emotional component of a person's relationship with food #eatingpsychology #coaching #weightloss #health Click To Tweet

Diet culture, in my opinion, is the crash diet/snake oil salesman approach to weight loss.   Cleanses, weight loss teas and all of that bullshit which cuts corners or claims to suppress physiological urges to eat are gimmicks and do not offer a sustainable long-term approach to weight management. These things don’t work long-term because a) they are unhealthy and b) they go against every facet of common sense – ‘slow and steady’ – science of sustainable weight loss.

If weight loss is something you are looking to achieve to improve your health and the life you lead, I hope this information has helped to clear up some of the confusing rhetoric that exists. I want to stress that I am not here to tell anybody that they should lose weight or that it is the most important thing a person should focus on, but if it is something you have struggled with, this blog is a good resource for healthy, holistic weight management and lifestyle choices. Remember to subscribe to the blog to see new posts when they go live.

TL/DR: Starvation mode – in the way it is most commonly framed (i.e. following a moderate dietary framework) – isn’t keeping you from losing weight. Weight loss is a balanced science and is both adaptable and delivers results, but those results vary depending on where you start from, how you approach these changes and if you’re ready to make long-term, sustainable lifestyle choices to maintain the loss. It is not easy, but it is also (for the most part) not super complicated. The best place to start is to want to start and the best way to keep going is to always remember why you started.

Have You Been ‘Supply and Demand’ Dieting?

If you’ve ever taken a basic economics class, you’ve no doub heard of supply and demand, right?

The Law of Supply and Demand is the theory explaining the interaction between the supply of a resource and the demand for that resource, or the effect the availability of a particular product and the desire (or need) for that product has on price.

I’ve always thought that this law also sounds a bit like the act of restrictive eating and crash dieting.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND DIETING?

Now, think about supply and demand regarding your struggles with food and eating.

When you supply yourself with food (aka feed yourself), demand for it goes down.  And when you restrict food, the need for it goes way up.

In other words, when you limit the amount of food (crash diets) and your physical demand for it will increase. While if you give yourself the amount of food it needs then your physical demand for it will decrease.

With a success rate of less than 5%, crash diets do not work.

Supply and demand dieting is just another way to support the belief that crash dieting, especially extremely restrictive eating, doesn’t work long term.

I would know. Believe me. I’ve starved, cleansed, no carbed, low carbed, all carbed — and the only thing that got me on the road to real recovery was to change my relationship (and behaviours) with food.

And through the recovery and education process I discovered what truly does work is eating and moving in ways that make you healthy and happy.

So, the next time you want to embark on ‘just one more’ crash diet, think about the law of supply and demand.

And don’t do it.

I talk about this topic and more when you work with me to build your confidence with food.  Get in touch with me at erin@erinslifebites.com and be sure to sign up for my coaching emails, today!

And through the recovery and education process I discovered what truly does work is eating and moving in ways that make you healthy and happy. Click To Tweet

Subscribe to receive new posts!