Starvation Mode

24

Replies

  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    500 calories of fat = 55g
    250 calories of carbs = 62g
    250 calories of protein = 62g



    No not naive...minimum requirements are just that...minimum and what about micros..I would like to see someone without vitamin pills get in the requirment for iron, vitamin A,D, C, B12, calcuim etc...on that.

    And do you really think that someone that is considering eating 1k or lower is looking at the macro's of food...what will happen is the carbs will be hit and the fat and the protien will not...you can't assume...

    I know women who are saying they want to eat 1k or below are going to be eating salads and fruit and low fat this and non fat that.

    How because I was one once...

    You can mix and substitute within that. But to say 1000 calories is not enough to fit the bare minimum of macro nutrients and micro nutrients (assuming one eats nutrient dense foods) is naive. Can you function? Yes. Should you do it? Not unless you know what hell you are doing and can meet your nutrient goals. You'll have to eat very clean and very diverse.

    While I agree with you that the OP is probably not qualified in anyway to go onto a 1000 calories diet, to have an absolute statement that one cannot fit what they need as a 120 lb woman, is likely incorrect. With enough salad's, fresh vegetables, fruits etc I think you can come very close to reaching your vitamin/mineral requirements. And like you said, a vitamin can work (if you assume the body can absorb them which is debatable).

    But we're just arguing semantics now.

    agreed absolutes should not be stated...I will remember that the next time and ensure I say OP you will probably most likely not.
  • BlueBombers
    BlueBombers Posts: 4,065 Member
    Good luck with that
  • frodoschmodo
    frodoschmodo Posts: 9 Member
    Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot to mention that BMR (and thus TDEE and maintaining calories) go down as weight goes down.


    Never said it was healthy to eat that little. Just said starvation mode doesn't exist.
    You said 1000 calories is more than reasonable. You're wrong. No its not and there really is no defending the logic you will attempt to chase.

    I stand by my point, but I DID word it badly and the way I worded it can be interpreted wrong. Hard to, but not impossible. 1000 calories is not reasonable to be healthy. 1000 calories IS reasonable for weight loss, if you choose to lose weight that fast and are being mindful of your nutrition.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    No it's not...you can't get in enough nutrients at that level...protien, carbs and fats...let alone the micros...

    OP no it's not okay...ever.
    I concur. Do not deprive yourself of eating a healthy calorie goal. As long as you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot to mention that BMR (and thus TDEE and maintaining calories) go down as weight goes down.


    Never said it was healthy to eat that little. Just said starvation mode doesn't exist.
    You said 1000 calories is more than reasonable. You're wrong. No its not and there really is no defending the logic you will attempt to chase.

    I stand by my point, but I DID word it badly and the way I worded it can be interpreted wrong. Hard to, but not impossible. 1000 calories is not reasonable to be healthy. 1000 calories IS reasonable for wei ght loss, if you choose to lose weight that fast and are being mindful of your nutrition.
    No, it was not interpreted wrong. You are still advocating 1000 calories to lose weight. That is a very low calorie diet, which MFP does not support. It's plain bad advice.
  • RHachicho
    RHachicho Posts: 1,115 Member
    lol you can eat 2 cals a day and be fine. That's ridiculous. Even someone morbidly obese won't take months to starve to death. It's true that fat reserves can allow a greater deficit without health risks but the protection is not infinite.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    lol you can eat 2 cals a day and be fine. That's ridiculous. Even someone morbidly obese won't take months to starve to death. It's true that fat reserves can allow a greater deficit without health risks but the protection is not infinite.
    And your remark is even sillier.

    Starvation mode DOES exist, just not amongst the mainstream dieters.
  • RHachicho
    RHachicho Posts: 1,115 Member
    lol you can eat 2 cals a day and be fine. That's ridiculous. Even someone morbidly obese won't take months to starve to death. It's true that fat reserves can allow a greater deficit without health risks but the protection is not infinite.
    And your remark is even sillier.

    Starvation mode DOES exist, just not amongst the mainstream dieters.

    Where in my short post did I say that starvation mode does not exist. I simply said that 2 calories a day will cause genuine starvation in anyone. Which is true.
  • princessnuriko
    princessnuriko Posts: 50 Member
    I won't say anything about being in a Starvation Mode, but when you're burning alot of calories and sticking to eating a low NET amount of calories, you could end up binge eating because you're calorie deficient and starvin like Marvin. By then, at least for me, I binge on carbs because they're so TASTY! I've done it more than a few times, and now I've upped my calories to quit the binge eating and it's helped tremendously.
  • itsjustmish
    itsjustmish Posts: 107 Member
    I'm not exactly new here, but there's something which I've never been entirely sure of and which seems to be appropriate to this topic so I thought I'd finally get around to asking!
    Is the general consensus of opinion that you shouldn't eat less gross calories than your BMR, or that your net shouldn't fall below your BMR number? i.e. If (as an example) my BMR is 1250 but I burn 500 calories through exercise, do I need to still ensure that I hit 1250 net, or would eating 1500 calories and netting 750 be OK? Just curious!
  • paymentm
    paymentm Posts: 105 Member
    I plan my meals to equal about 1000 calories a day so that leaves me with 200-300 calories for snacks or unplanned food. Some days I don't even feel hungry enough for the snacks and that leaves me with just my meals. I know this is said to not be healthy but I haven't lost any energy in the month I've been doing this. Everyone is different but I don't think eating under 1200 should be a goal. However, certain days you just eat more/less so focus on a weekly calorie goal instead.
  • Fit_Chef_NE
    Fit_Chef_NE Posts: 110 Member
    It takes a long time to go into "starvation mode". Survivors of Auschwitz went into starvation mode after weeks and months of not getting enough food. You won't be "starving" until you burn through a good amount of your body fat and muscle. I think a lot of people use it as an excuse to eat too much. "If I cut any calories, I'll go into starvation mode and gain weight!" Um, no.

    That said, you still need to eat enough to fuel your body. You won't start burning fat when you eat too little, you will lose muscle. You will lose weight perhaps, but look flabby. Much better to eat well and do a bit of exercise.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    lol you can eat 2 cals a day and be fine. That's ridiculous. Even someone morbidly obese won't take months to starve to death. It's true that fat reserves can allow a greater deficit without health risks but the protection is not infinite.
    And your remark is even sillier.

    Starvation mode DOES exist, just not amongst the mainstream dieters.

    Where in my short post did I say that starvation mode does not exist. I simply said that 2 calories a day will cause genuine starvation in anyone. Which is true.

    Your first remark is silly because it goes to a far extreme that you know is not true. After all, you did forget the "not" in your sentence above and now say that 2 calories a day will cause starvation in anymore. Freudian slip? :wink:

    I'd be starving if I ate 2 calories a day and so would you or anyone else. I don't mean starving as in "starvation mode," but as in overwhelmingly hungry. You'd also be on the road to malnutrition.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    It takes a long time to go into "starvation mode". Survivors of Auschwitz went into starvation mode after weeks and months of not getting enough food. You won't be "starving" until you burn through a good amount of your body fat and muscle. I think a lot of people use it as an excuse to eat too much. "If I cut any calories, I'll go into starvation mode and gain weight!" Um, no.

    That said, you still need to eat enough to fuel your body. You won't start burning fat when you eat too little, you will lose muscle. You will lose weight perhaps, but look flabby. Much better to eat well and do a bit of exercise.
    I agree with this.
  • BigT555
    BigT555 Posts: 2,068 Member
    Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot to mention that BMR (and thus TDEE and maintaining calories) go down as weight goes down.


    Never said it was healthy to eat that little. Just said starvation mode doesn't exist.
    You said 1000 calories is more than reasonable. You're wrong. No its not and there really is no defending the logic you will attempt to chase.

    I stand by my point, but I DID word it badly and the way I worded it can be interpreted wrong. Hard to, but not impossible. 1000 calories is not reasonable to be healthy. 1000 calories IS reasonable for weight loss, if you choose to lose weight that fast and are being mindful of your nutrition.
    its not reasonable for anything. not only is is detrimental to general health, the likelihood of someone sticking to that strict of a calorie intake for an extended period of time is nil. the likelihood of one gaining back all lost weight after they have lost the desired weight is high. VLCD's are a terrible idea unless you have the extreme willpower required to stick to a crazy low intake of food and no regard for health
  • leahmthomas95
    leahmthomas95 Posts: 4
    Here's the thing about starvation mode- It doesn't exist, at least as long as you have any body fat to speak of. Starvation mode is what happens when your body has nothing, not even fat to run off of, not just when you're not feeding it.

    With your goal weight, you will not EVER have to worry about starvation mode. You could eat 2 calories a day and still be just fine until you got severely underweight.

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    Also, if your goal is 1,000 or fewer (or anywhere below maintenance, really) calories it'd be in bad judgement not to eat back your exercised calories.

    Came here to make my first ever MFP post. You are absolutely right and those who are saying you're wrong have literally no concept of how calories work.

    Calories are energy. Fat is stored energy. You can't have fat unless you have energy. Therefore, it should really come as no surprise that hey, there is NO SUCH THING AS STARVATION MODE. You don't get fat where there are no calories. This is basic science and a rudimentary understanding of physics.

    I would like anyone to explain to me why I'm wrong. Please. Seriously, I want to hear your replies. Educate me on how you can create energy where there is none.

Categories