starting slow metabolic rate after months of low cal intake

SLLRunner

I've found this helpful.

http://www.leighpeele.com/starvation-mode

Well, aside from the fact that the first thing you see at that site is her books and "become a client", that woman is grossly misinformed on what starvation mode really is. Overweight people don't go into starvation mode, and it's not based on the amount of calories your eat.

THIS is starvation: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/6/1347.full

Well no they don't go into "starvation mode" in the sense that you see in the pics you've posted but they do have metabolic adaptations that make weight loss more difficult after prolonged deficits which can cause plateaus. And given that her research has between 200 and 300 research and study citations validating her article and book, I lend her opinion weight. (pun intended)

What you describe is not starvation mode. She's got that site to sell her books, not to circulate correct information.

SLLRunner

Mulecanter
I think you are not accurate in your assumptions. Living proof here.

If he's inaccurate, then so is half the posters here with their replies. Eating more simply fuels you body properly, it does not help you lose weight. Eating less than you burn is how you lose weight.

I actually agree with you....half of the posters are not correct in every situation of weight loss. Simply eating less than you burn does not work in every situation. It certainly works at first but the body adapts. There is more than one simple direction when losing weight. There are many things to consider over and above "just eat less". I can't tell you what OP is or is not doing but I can tell you from personal experience it is not "just eat less" 100% of the time. You must consider other factors. I'm not saying eat more and lose weight, I'm saying don't automatically assume if weight loss has stalled or is slow the dieter is just eating too much, there are other factors to consider.

The most common cause of weight gain is due to eating too much, which most often results from underestimating calorie intake and overestimating exercise burns. Eating more is to fuel your body properly, but you still have to stay within a certain calorie goal to lose. If it were true that eating more makes us lose weight, then we'd all be eating more and losing weight instead of the opposite.

So, no those people who say to properly calculate those calories, the result being to eat less, are not wrong. They are actually right on.

Toblave

Did you read the article? I think you're getting to hung up on the phrase "starvation mode." You are correct, what she describes is not "starvation mode" , she uses the term in the colloquial fashion; as it's often used when referring to when dieting and such. Of course she has the site to sell her book and her services, she is a personal trainer and author, but that doesn't discredit her assertions.

She asserts that long periods of deficits (especially larger ones) can have negative impacts on metabolism due to physiological adaptions because the human body doesn't know the difference between dieting down for weight loss and times of low food availability.

As for the book, she states at the end of the article that all you need to know is actually in the article itself unless you're interested in all of the whys and wherefores.

Mr_Knight

I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

Great, the special snowflakes are back.

There are exactly Zero factors that can break that concept.

Toblave

I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

Great, the special snowflakes are back.

There are exactly Zero factors that can break that concept.

To lose weight you have to have a deficit. High carb, low carb or whatever else there is are a means of generating a deficit. There's no way around it.

SLLRunner

I really don't like hearing constantly, just "eat under your calories, and you'll loose weight", there are many factors that can make or break that concept.

Great, the special snowflakes are back.

There are exactly Zero factors that can break that concept.

To lose weight you have to have a deficit. High carb, low carb or whatever else there is are a means of generating a deficit. There's no way around it.

You're right, you do have to have a deficit to lose weight, but it's not about high carbs or low carbs, it's about eating less than you burn. There are people who successfully lose weight every day who eat whatever they've always eaten, they just eat less, and they pay no attention to carbs or fat or anything else but how much food they take in.

Eat less than you burn and you will lose weight. Eat more than you burn and you will gain weight.

I know because I gained 30 pounds back weight lifting and running three times a week. Believe me, it wasn't muscle, it was fat and I gained it from eating way more calories than I burned.

Glad that fat 30 pounds plus nine more is gone now that I've chosen to eat less than I burn.

SideSteel

OP:

Track meticulously for two weeks, using a food scale and logging absolutely every bite. I guarantee you two things will happen:

1). Weight loss.
2). You will be very hungry.

You are probably not continuously (key word) eating 1000-1200 cals. You might be on some days followed by much higher days due to lack of adherence or tracking inaccuracies.