Can Eating Too Few Calories Stall Your Metabolism?

ProTFitness

Can Eating Too Few Calories Stall Your Metabolism?
Learn why cutting out too many calories can keep you from losing weight.
By Krisha McCoy, MS
Medically reviewed by Christine Wilmsen Craig, MD Print Email If you're like most people who want to lose weight, you want to lose it fast. So you may be tempted to make drastic changes in your diet to dramatically reduce the number of calories you consume. But what you may not know is that eating too few calories can actually backfire and sabotage your weight-loss efforts.

"It would make sense to stop eating [when you are trying to lose weight], but it actually works in the opposite way," says Kimberly Lummus, MS, RD, Texas Dietetic Association media representative and public relations coordinator at the Austin Dietetic Association in Austin, Texas.

Calories and Your Health

The most effective way to lose weight is to consume fewer calories than you expend, creating a calorie deficit. But if your calorie intake dips too low, says Lummus, your body could go into starvation mode. "Your body will start to store fat because it thinks it is not going to get anything," says Lummus. "You will be at a point where your body is kind of at a standstill."

Lummus says that when your body goes into starvation mode, your metabolism slows to a crawl, burning calories as slowly as possible to conserve its energy stores. This is why people who cut their calories too much may reach a plateau and stop losing weight.

Eating too few calories can be the start of a vicious cycle that causes diet distress. When you cut your calories so low that your metabolism slows and you stop losing weight, you probably will become frustrated that your efforts are not paying off. This can lead you to overeat and ultimately gain weight.

nopeekiepeekie

You know what I like about all these studies? They all tell you that too few calories can stall metabolism, but none of them really give you a number range at when that happens.

LittleSpy

You know what I like about all these studies? They all tell you that too few calories can stall metabolism, but none of them really give you a number range at when that happens.

They can't. Everyone is different.

Jomochan

Well it's because it's all relative to your weight, goal weight, and how much you've been eating. some firm numbers are NO ONE should eat fewer than 1200 calories a day. This doesn't include working out, so if you do, make sure and eat more. This is the basic number for metabolism and other bodily processes such as menstrual cycles, growing your teeth, nails, and hair, etc.

Laura80111

You know what I like about all these studies? They all tell you that too few calories can stall metabolism, but none of them really give you a number range at when that happens.

It would be hard for them to tell you that because everyone's body is different. I know that what I eat is too little for 99% of the people on here, but because of my height I know what it takes for me to lose. If I were to eat as much as most (almost all) of the people on here say you must I'd still be waiting to lose my first #5.

Everyone has to KNOW their own body and when they do, they will know how many calories that they can consume and how much exercise it will take to lose the weight. It's gonna take time but once you do know your bodies formula you should be able to stay away from "starvation mode".

NutritionDivaRD

Clarissa~ That's because there is no specific range. There is a formula that is used to calculate how many calories an individual needs to maintain weight and sustain optimal health. But it isn't something that can be applied in a range to a community as a whole. So that is why it is not included in the discussion or conclusion of scientific studies.

Angela

nopeekiepeekie

My point is, there must be some type of range, because everyone on this site insists that you can't go less than 1200 + exercise calories, yet if I even eat half of my exercise calories (I wear an HRM) I don't lose anything or I gain.

There are a lot of people out there (with doctor's orders - not talking about any fad diets) who are on the shorter side, that can and do eat less than 1200 calories.

ETA - not one of the studies I've seen on this states that less than 1200 net will put you in starvation mode. If this was a hard and true fact, wouldn't that be put into the studies?

NutritionDivaRD

People with anorexia are experiencing muscle wasting. So they aren't losing fat (although they don't normally have any). Their bodies are burning their stored protein. Yikes, right? Staying in the proper calorie range isn't just important to keep the body's metabolism running efficiently. It is also to keep the body from burning muscle....we want to burn FAT! And most individuals with anorexia don't eat anywhere near 1000 calories per day.....they eat far below that. It is sad indeed.

Mindful_Trent

Great reminder. Too many people don't understand that losing weight the healthy way is not about eating as little as possible. Many people can eat 800-1200 cals/day and not lose anything! (Because they're not eating enough!) Our culture equates weight loss with restricting calories, so it is hard to understand for some people that you have to eat ENOUGH to lose weight successfully (and in a healthy way)!

i always hear this and i always say the same thing ... people with anorexia DONT eat and they do lose weight. just to make things clear i'm NOT saying its healthy or that its the way to do things, i'm just saying ... they eat BELOW 1200 or 1000 or whatever so you can really say that if you just dont eat you wont lose weight.

Well, obviously there is a point at which your body simply cannot hold onto weight any longer. Most people who eat too few calories aren't anorexic - they float that space between eating so little that they have to lose (not only fat, but muscle as well!) and eating enough to bring their bodies out of starvation mode.

I can't tell if you were trying to say that starvation mode doesn't stall weight loss, but if that is what you were saying then you're wrong.

Here's a great post that explains why you stall out when you don't eat enough (but stay above the anorexic line were your body HAS to lose weight). http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing

Mindful_Trent

My point is, there must be some type of range, because everyone on this site insists that you can't go less than 1200 + exercise calories, yet if I even eat half of my exercise calories (I wear an HRM) I don't lose anything or I gain.

There are a lot of people out there (with doctor's orders - not talking about any fad diets) who are on the shorter side, that can and do eat less than 1200 calories.

ETA - not one of the studies I've seen on this states that less than 1200 net will put you in starvation mode. If this was a hard and true fact, wouldn't that be put into the studies?

If eating your exercise calories stalls your weight loss, then read this: it explains why that would happen:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/117726-eating-exercise-cals-slowing-your-weight-loss-read-this

LittleSpy

i always hear this and i always say the same thing ... people with anorexia DONT eat and they do lose weight. just to make things clear i'm NOT saying its healthy or that its the way to do things, i'm just saying ... they eat BELOW 1200 or 1000 or whatever so you can really say that if you just dont eat you wont lose weight.

Starvation mode doesn't mean you're not losing weight. I think we can all agree that people do, in fact, STARVE TO DEATH. What the term refers to is that you're body isn't burning as many calories as it really should. "Starvation mode" = the body conserving fat and energy for survival

The reason folks warn about "starvation mode" is because it can be not only frustrating relative to weight loss but also dangerous. Once your body determines it's not receiving an adequate number of calories to continue burning them at the rate it has been, your body starts shutting down some "nonessential" functions. But then if you let it go beyond that, it begins shutting down more essential functions and damaging organs and tissue.

nopeekiepeekie

If eating your exercise calories stalls your weight loss, then read this: it explains why that would happen:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/117726-eating-exercise-cals-slowing-your-weight-loss-read-this

Though I don't post often, I've read this post multiple times. My activity level is set to sedentary (desk job... most exercise is when I go to the gym, or use my treadmill), I use an HRM, I measure/weigh my food and have no medical conditions. In the month of September, I've lost a total of 2 lbs, but according to MFP, I should have been losing 1.5lbs per week, which has not happened.

stormieweather

1200 is a general figure that the World Health Organization and other medical communities have come up with as a minimal amount of calories to prevent starvation. It was originally calculated to determine how much in supplies a traumatized region would need (flood, war, etc.) per adult female capita.

People's needs may differ based on health issues, activity levels, and size as well as the spectrum of "normal" metabolism.

Mindful_Trent

If eating your exercise calories stalls your weight loss, then read this: it explains why that would happen:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/117726-eating-exercise-cals-slowing-your-weight-loss-read-this

Though I don't post often, I've read this post multiple times. My activity level is set to sedentary (desk job... most exercise is when I go to the gym, or use my treadmill), I use an HRM, I measure/weigh my food and have no medical conditions. In the month of September, I've lost a total of 2 lbs, but according to MFP, I should have been losing 1.5lbs per week, which has not happened.

Are you backing your normal calorie burn out of your exercise calories as computed by the HRM? That could cause a difference. I'm happy to try to help you figure this out you if you want to send me a PM. It could also be that your "normal daily burn" is less than what MFP thinks it is, if your metabolism is slower. Unless you go get a professional test somewhere, this isn't really something you can know for sure.

stormieweather

bah

nopeekiepeekie

1200 is a general figure that the World Health Organization and other medical communities have come up with as a minimal amount of calories to prevent starvation. It was originally calculated to determine how much in supplies a traumatized region would need (flood, war, etc.) per adult female capita.

Now this makes complete sense! I've always wondered where the 1200 number came from. I mean, people had to have some reason to be telling everyone on the site to not go below 1200 net. Thanks stormieweather!

nopeekiepeekie

Are you backing your normal calorie burn out of your exercise calories as computed by the HRM? That could cause a difference. I'm happy to try to help you figure this out you if you want to send me a PM. It could also be that your "normal daily burn" is less than what MFP thinks it is, if your metabolism is slower. Unless you go get a professional test somewhere, this isn't really something you can know for sure.

I don't back out, because I don't burn more than 500 calories (per HRM) on any given day. Most days it's less than 200 as I only work out on my lunch time. I'm not complaining about the slow weight loss, I'm actually hoping it'll help me with the skin on my belly, but I don't think that's going to happen either. :laugh:

Mindful_Trent

Are you backing your normal calorie burn out of your exercise calories as computed by the HRM? That could cause a difference. I'm happy to try to help you figure this out you if you want to send me a PM. It could also be that your "normal daily burn" is less than what MFP thinks it is, if your metabolism is slower. Unless you go get a professional test somewhere, this isn't really something you can know for sure.

I don't back out, because I don't burn more than 500 calories (per HRM) on any given day. Most days it's less than 200 as I only work out on my lunch time. I'm not complaining about the slow weight loss, I'm actually hoping it'll help me with the skin on my belly, but I don't think that's going to happen either. :laugh:

The idea behind backing out the "normal calories" is that you're going to burn a normal amount of calories no matter what, so only the calories you burn over that are really exercise calories. Ex. if I burn 300 working out for 30 minutes per my HRM, I would back out 45 of those as my "normal calories". It would only make a big difference if you're working out for long periods of time each week - I've been doing about 6 hours of exercise a week, so I feel like I have to take this into consideration (6 hours x 91 "normal calories" per hour = about 550 calories overestimated if I don't!) - but since you said your workouts aren't that long, it's probably not a big difference for you.

Anyways - Congrats on your weight loss so far! Obviously whatever you're doing is working for you. :flowerforyou:

edorice

Eating too few calories DOES stall my weight loss. I was burning up to 900 calories on Insanity workouts and during the 63 days of Insanity I only lost 3 pounds. That was my fault because I was always in a net under 1200 calories each day.

clipsychic

great thread!

CarlaMcDougall

1200 is what the program tells me I have to stay below. I was eating much more then reduce to 1200 because the program said so. I lost 4kg in week one doing lots of exercise (like I generally do) and occasionally I stayed below my calories for the day. The exercise gives you so many calories back. Now second week. Still stayed around the 1200 mark but less exercise and have lost nothing. What's going on ?Only had 7kg to lose ?