Is this true?

Cynsonya

I know we should ideally try to hit our calorie goal MFP gives us based on our goals. I also know we should eat approx 50% of our exercise calories back.

My question is, I've seen a few people say if we eat too few calories under our calorie goal (400-600) that we'll decrease our BMR which will hinder weight loss down the road because we'll not have the room to keep lowering our calorie goal.

Is this true?

earlnabby

It is what is called "Starvation Mode" and it is a myth.

snickerscharlie

earlnabby wrote: »

It is what is called "Starvation Mode" and it is a myth.

This.

Cynsonya

OK just checking. I have a lot of weight to lose so the number MFP gives me is 1970 a day. Add to this 1/2 of about 300 exercise calories means I should consume about 2120. My average is 1700. Just wanted to make sure I shouldn't be forcing more calories in to save me a hassle later.

CoffeeNCardio

Yes and No. What you are referring to is commonly called "Starvation mode" and it's a big fat myth. There is some decrease in metabolic rate for PROLONGED extreme caloric deficit. But even then, as soon as those people start eating normally again, it corrects itself. So, lie.

Of course, on the reality side, as you lose weight, yes your body needs fewer calories. A 300 lb 5' woman has 200 more lbs of flesh to keep blood flowing to. She has bigger muscles from having to carry around the extra weight, those need more fuel. But after she loses that 200lbs, she doesn't have as much work to do hauling it around. She probably lost some lean body mass (muscle tissue), her organs don't have o work as hard (specifically her heart).

So yes, your caloric intake (maintenance calories) won't remain the same from overweight you to healthy weight you. But that doesn't have anything to do with going under your goal now. Going under your goal by a lot isn't healthy. MFP knows what it's doing, your calorie goal isn't arbitrary, and anything below 1200 is a VLCD and is dangerous to your all around health.

So what you're hearing is sort of true, but wrong sentiment really.

snickerscharlie

The reason for not undercutting your calorie allotment by 400 to 600 calories is because in doing so, you are creating too large of a deficit which means you are not getting the nutrients your body needs from food. This will result in an unhealthy weight loss at the expense of increased muscle mass depletion. It also causes wonderful things like dry skin and excessive hair loss.

Don't go there. It's not necessary or sustainable, and it's not healthy.

earlnabby

Cynsonya wrote: »

OK just checking. I have a lot of weight to lose so the number MFP gives me is 1970 a day. Add to this 1/2 of about 300 exercise calories means I should consume about 2120. My average is 1700. Just wanted to make sure I shouldn't be forcing more calories in to save me a hassle later.

Weight loss does tend to slow down a bit when you get closer to your goal, but if you maintain a reasonable deficit (-500 to -1000 calories per day to lose 1-2 lb per week) and lower the actual calorie count as you lose weight (MFP does this for you) you should be just fine. I have lost 125 lb so far and still average close to 1800 calories a day. I eat back more like 80% of my exercise calories.

Cynsonya

I'll try to up my average to at least 1800 daily. I'm not trying to lose much faster than the 2lb a week MFP sets for me. I usually hit my macros fairly close except carbs. I rarely get enough carbs except on special days like dinner away from home or Superbowl, lol.

ElizabethOakes2

The place where it's a real concern is in cases like me, where my doctor started me out at 1200 calories( I was physically unable to exercise beyond a slow walk at that point in time- my spine bones were sitting on each other and every impact degraded them further. I couldn't even swim beyond kicking along with a kickboard). Now, I'm up to 1300+ half my exercise cals, for a total of about 1500-1600 on workout days, and as I get fitter and able to take on more activity, that will raise higher. But imagine what would happen if I'd stayed at 1200. When I get down to those last stubborn ten pounds, I wouldn't have any flexibility to adjust my intake.

Eat your calories. They're good for you!

VintageFeline

Adaptive thermogenesis. It is a thing but not "starvation mode". It's your body naturally reducing its energy requirements due to prolonged calorie restriction but it's not an issue for the vast majority of people and as said, is easily put right once eating returns to normal. It's also why a lot of people take "diet breaks" at varying intervals and eat at maintenance for a week or two. Keeps hormones etc as they should be.

I do think you could eat a little more, if you're losing more than the aimed for 2lbs per week, for the benefit of your health and also your ongoing success, as the poster above says, it's good to keep as much wiggle room as possible as your intake requirements lessen and your deficit becomes smaller.

Cynsonya

VintageFeline wrote: »

I do think you could eat a little more, if you're losing more than the aimed for 2lbs per week, for the benefit of your health and also your ongoing success, as the poster above says, it's good to keep as much wiggle room as possible as your intake requirements lessen and your deficit becomes smaller.

Great, thanks! Since my macros are generally pretty close except carbs I'll add another snack daily. Maybe 1/2c cottage cheese and a 100g raspberries

rsclause

Myth or not, I found I had more consistent steady weight loss when I would go slightly under my goal. When I would do some days that were more than that it didn't speed things up. When I went way under I felt so bad I had to skip exercise for a day. Slow and steady deficit wins this race for me.

earlnabby

Cynsonya wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

I do think you could eat a little more, if you're losing more than the aimed for 2lbs per week, for the benefit of your health and also your ongoing success, as the poster above says, it's good to keep as much wiggle room as possible as your intake requirements lessen and your deficit becomes smaller.

Great, thanks! Since my macros are generally pretty close except carbs I'll add another snack daily. Maybe 1/2c cottage cheese and a 100g raspberries

Carbs are the macro you have the most play with. It is more important to get a decent amount of protein and fat in, and fill in the rest with carbs. Sounds like you are on the right track. I agree that, for overall health, you should err on the side of losing more slowly than more quickly. It also helps when the time comes for maintenance. I started out losing 1.5 lb a week, then slowed it down to 1 lb after I lost 100 lb. I am still aiming for 1 but am averaging between 3-4 per month so it is a little slower than my plan, but I can live with it because I feel I am able to handle maintaining better when the time comes.