stalls on 1200 cal + vs no stalls in "starvation mode"

JD2006

Ok, going to attempt to make this question as least confusing as possible.

So, say someone is doing the 1200 cal thing via mfp. Then after a while, they stall...and someone is like "yeah you shouldnt do the 1200 cal diet because it doesnt leave any room for you to decrease cals, when you stall, without leaving you hungry...and doesnt leave room for you to decrease cals once you get smaller". Or you know, something like that.
Ok now say someone is like "hey Im gonna eat 300 cals a day and basically starve myself thin"...then someone else is like "yeah....thats not healthy...you need nutrients and stuff dude...and youre gonna be like super hungry. BUT, it will work....cause starvation mode doesnt kick in til youre basically dying anyway....since starvation mode is kinda bs for the most part(which btw I agree with). So yeah....your weightloss wont slow down within weeks of starting this crazy diet.. and you wont need to worry about decreasing cals once youre skinnier cause youll just keep losing weight til youre like those dudes in the starvation study"

So....are you seeing where Im going with this? How is it that you can hit plateaus/have weightloss stall or slowdown within just weeks of starting and whatnot, on an already low cal diet...but when it comes to eating next to nothing (like 500 cals for example) youre metabolism doesnt slow down or whatever....you dont go weeks without dropping a pound like you do on a regular mfp cal deficit....you supposedly just keep losing when youre starving and dont have any points where weight loss stops. In theory....according to various things Ive been reading. Does my question makes sense at all? lol

***This is just all out of my own curiosity and desire for more knowledge on how it all works. Im not planning on starving myself. I luv bacon.***

SugaryLynx

I never stalled eating at 1200 calories when I lost 50 lbs the first time I tried to lose weight. Months of steady, crazy fast weight loss. Didn't hardly drop any pants sizes from doing it, either because I'm sure I lost muscle that time along with fat. If you're logging 100% and eating a static amount, ideally you should see consistent losses. There will always be small "stalls" or fluxes in weight from water retention, lack of bowel movement, sleep, excess cortisol (which eating well below your TDEE I'm sure can contribute to)

The reason you shouldn't starve yourself, which is individual what amount is ideal, is because when you take weight loss too aggressively you risk muscle loss. That can include vital organs like the heart, lungs, etc not just in your arms, legs, etc. Plus, it's extremely unhealthy. Weight loss in general is a taxing feat for the body, so doing so in a less aggressive manner will always be ideal for proper bodily function. Metabolic adaptation happens over an extended period of time. I really don't know the thorough details of that but I'm assuming over X amount of time eating a VLCD, you are therefore reducing your maintenance calories by messing with your metabolism. It doesn't happen over a few week period, i would assume it would be a very long time period. To recover that, you eat at maintenence or surplus, where your body doesn't have to struggle to find energy. Your body needs calories to function like a car needs gas. Give it too little, it won't function properly or for as long. That was why I decided to eat at 1650 net for weight loss and take things slower. Learn how to make sustainable changes and not worry so much about an end point. It doesn't end at goal weight.

Leighsters

* pulls out popcorn*

Timshel_

It would be nearly impossible to stall on that low of calories, though all things considered it might decrease in a week for a variety of factors (water weight, lack of activity, cuz...well...you have no energy). But it would never be stalled.

skruttan44

It would be nearly impossible to stall on that low of calories, though all things considered it might decrease in a week for a variety of factors (water weight, lack of activity, cuz...well...you have no energy). But it would never be stalled.

so true. I was sick a few years ago (not eating disorder), couldn't eat. Lost tons of weight quickly, doctor appointments but in the beginning wasn't taken seriously as I wasn't "skinny". Took some time before they figured it out, by that time I was on IV due to dehydration, and because of prolonged time with such low food (almost none at the end) intake I lost hair, dreadful!
Dizzy, weak, you name it. Not possible to feel well at that calorie intake level.

AmyDee1969

No answers, just an anecdote. Recently I was stalled for almost 2 weeks at 1200 calories per day and eating about 1/2 of my workout calories. As an experiment I upped my calorie intake to 1350, continued working at about the same intensity and continued eating about 1/2 the workout calories. Voila! Plateau was no more, and the scale started moving again.

skruttan44

No answers, just an anecdote. Recently I was stalled for almost 2 weeks at 1200 calories per day and eating about 1/2 of my workout calories. As an experiment I upped my calorie intake to 1350, continued working at about the same intensity and continued eating about 1/2 the workout calories. Voila! Plateau was no more, and the scale started moving again.

Interesting, i am going to remember that in case it happens to me, thank you for sharing

JD2006

Thanks for the info and input guys!

MissKris14

It is absolutely possible to stall on 1200. This is exactly where I'm at right now. I've been on 1200 net calories for over a month, and haven't lost a pound, even though I still have a good amount to lose. I've noticed that if I want to lose, I have to eat below 1000, or forgo eating back my exercise calories. My mom has maintained on 1200 a day for almost 2 years now. For a lot of people, it's a maintenance point.