Starvation mode with too much exercise?

PPumpItUp

If you let your calories drop beyond a certain point for a certain amount of time, your metabolism shuts down. I was wondering, if I keep my calories at a healthy level but do a lot of cardio and weight training, burning enough calories to put me at a low net calorie count for the day, will my body enter its starvation mode and slow my metabolism?

Sabine_Stroehm

For the sake of clarity: what kind of numbers are we talking about?

DeguelloTex

Your first sentence is false.

Your metabolism will slow as you lose weight, but it, in itself, will not prevent you from losing weight.

xXBabyBelleXx

You're on thin ice asking that question on here ...

MityMax96

You are incorrect in this.
No starvation mode (see children in Ethiopia)
Your metabolism does not shut down unless you are dead.

Your body responds to the environment you put it in.
Be smart with your nutrition.

DeguelloTex

Well, I take it back. If you eat at a deficit for long enough, your metabolism will shut down. However, your being dead will prevent you from noticing or caring.

fearlessleader104

It's not Friday yet.

DeguelloTex

fearlessleader104 wrote: »

It's not Friday yet.

Depends on where you are.

MityMax96

xXBabyBelleXx wrote: »

You're on thin ice asking that question on here ...

Hey trying to educate the person.
His understanding of the body and nutrition is way off.

juggernaut1974

xXBabyBelleXx wrote: »

You're on thin ice asking that question on here ...

Thanks for stopping by to help OP!

And, so I'm not hypocritical...basically echoing what everyone else said. Your metabolism will tend to slow down as you age, and as you lose weight (insofar as you simply need less calories to move your body around). But it never stops until you die.

That said, if you're netting a very low calorie amount after exercise, I will go out on a limb and predict you'll be exhausted and sick of your plan after about a week or two. Much better to stick with a reasonable calorie deficit so you can sustain it.

PPumpItUp

"Slight reductions in calorie counts result in slow steady weight loss. Exercise that increases calorie needs results in greater weight loss and better health. Drastically reduced calories send signals to your body that there is not enough food available. Radical diets might result in initial weight loss, but the body soon adapts to the sharp reduction in fuel by shutting down and putting itself in protection mode. Metabolism and energy levels drop and calorie needs drop further. The body further responds by slowing down metabolism and storing any extra calories as fat."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/244490-do-low-calorie-diets-slow-down-metabolism/

ncboiler89

AshLittle1 wrote: »

"Slight reductions in calorie counts result in slow steady weight loss. Exercise that increases calorie needs results in greater weight loss and better health. Drastically reduced calories send signals to your body that there is not enough food available. Radical diets might result in initial weight loss, but the body soon adapts to the sharp reduction in fuel by shutting down and putting itself in protection mode. Metabolism and energy levels drop and calorie needs drop further. The body further responds by slowing down metabolism and storing any extra calories as fat."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/244490-do-low-calorie-diets-slow-down-metabolism/

Livestrong in general is not a reputable site for health information. Specifically, this article is not because the author has no health background. This is her profile;

Barrett Barlowe is an award-winning writer and artist specializing in fitness, health, real estate, fine arts, and home and gardening. She is a former professional cook as well as a digital and traditional artist with many major film credits. Barlowe holds a Bachelor of Arts in English and French and a Master of Fine Arts in film animation.

Do you want to get your that affects your health and life from an artist and gardener? If she was writing an article about fine arts then....ya maybe.

NoIdea101NoIdea

MrM27 wrote: »

If your metabolism shuts down you die

xXBabyBelleXx wrote: »

You're on thin ice asking that question on here ...

If you've got some kind of information to say what most here believe is wrong why don't you provide it then?

Oh come off it, we have all seen how the well anything using the term 'starvation mode' goes down here!!

PPumpItUp

This quote infers to the answer I was looking for. As long as I do not deprive myself of calories I can exercise and have a high caloric deficit. My base metabolic rate is 3500 calories. According to MyFitnessPal, if I reduce my caloric intake to 2000 calories a day I will burn 2 pounds a week. 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories. This means if I take in 2000 calories a day but exercise and burn 1000 calories a day my net caloric consumption will be 1000 calories, meaning each day I am burning 2500 calories of fat, correct?

"Only reduce calorie intake by about 500 calories per day, and increase activity level to offset the smaller calorie reduction. Different exercises burn calories at varying rates depending on the intensity levels. A 160-lb. person, running at 5 mph, burns 584 calories per hour. Lap swimming at a moderate pace burns 511 calories per hour. Slight reductions in calorie counts, combined with aerobic and weight-lifting exercise, results in steady and lasting weight loss."

lemurcat12

AshLittle1 wrote: »

"Slight reductions in calorie counts result in slow steady weight loss. Exercise that increases calorie needs results in greater weight loss and better health. Drastically reduced calories send signals to your body that there is not enough food available. Radical diets might result in initial weight loss, but the body soon adapts to the sharp reduction in fuel by shutting down and putting itself in protection mode. Metabolism and energy levels drop and calorie needs drop further. The body further responds by slowing down metabolism and storing any extra calories as fat."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/244490-do-low-calorie-diets-slow-down-metabolism/

Barlowe [the author] holds a Bachelor of Arts in English and French and a Master of Fine Arts in film animation.

Still doesn't explain why she's posing as an expert on the internet, but makes the confusion in her information more understandable. I take most anything at Livestrong with a grain of salt, at least.

Now:

"Slight reductions in calorie counts result in slow steady weight loss. Exercise that increases calorie needs results in greater weight loss and better health."

is true, I believe, and eating more to fuel your exercise is probably a good idea. Sabine's question about the numbers is an important one.

"Drastically reduced calories send signals to your body that there is not enough food available. Radical diets might result in initial weight loss, but the body soon adapts to the sharp reduction in fuel by shutting down and putting itself in protection mode. Metabolism and energy levels drop and calorie needs drop further. The body further responds by slowing down metabolism and storing any extra calories as fat."

This isn't true or is overstated.

Being on low calories for a long time will result in metabolic adaptation where you burn fewer calories. For some this happens more extremely than others--there seems to be some variation in how much of an adaptation you get which is why some people have a harder time gaining weight than others (as it also works in the reverse). To a certain extent it appears that you can minimize the effect by having a less aggressive deficit and by making part of the deficit with exercise (there's a study that compares VLCD, a 25% deficit from food only, and a 25% deficit made up half by exercise where the adaptation is worst for the VLCD and least bad for the exercisers). There are various other reasons to avoid an extreme deficit, including one made up in large part with exercise.

But what does not happen is your body "shutting down" and storing extra fat. If you were doing this, how are you fueling the activity you are doing.

However, that your body may want to conserve energy can mean that you are doing stuff you don't notice like being more sedentary before and after the workout. These are good reasons not to have too extreme a deficit.

DemoraFairy

On the subject of starvation mode, you might find this interesting, basically explains why starvation mode doesn't exist and won't stop you losing weight: http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

Netting 1000 calories a day isn't recommended for small, sedentary women, let along an active guy with a TDEE of 3500. You don't generally want to be in a deficit of more than 1000 calories a day, so if your TDEE is 3500 you want to eat 2500.

_lyndseybrooke_

AshLittle1 wrote: »

If you let your calories drop beyond a certain point for a certain amount of time, your metabolism shuts down. I was wondering, if I keep my calories at a healthy level but do a lot of cardio and weight training, burning enough calories to put me at a low net calorie count for the day, will my body enter its starvation mode and slow my metabolism?

brianpperkins

AshLittle1 wrote: »

This quote infers to the answer I was looking for. As long as I do not deprive myself of calories I can exercise and have a high caloric deficit. My base metabolic rate is 3500 calories. According to MyFitnessPal, if I reduce my caloric intake to 2000 calories a day I will burn 2 pounds a week. 1 pound of fat is 3500 calories. This means if I take in 2000 calories a day but exercise and burn 1000 calories a day my net caloric consumption will be 1000 calories, meaning each day I am burning 2500 calories of fat, correct?

There are so many errors and contradictions in this paragraph that I'm not sure where to start. How do you plan on having a "high caloric deficit" without depriving yourself of calories? If your BMR is 3500, then your sedentary RMR is
about 4200 ... so two pounds per week projected loss would be 3200 calories per day.

Stop using opinion pieces as fact, learn the meaning of the terms you use, learn how this actually works.