The 1200-calorie/Starvation Mode Myth

Azdak

unfortunately, like any system that is broken, you can't just say "Eat when you're hungry" to an obese person any more than you can count on a broken thermostat in a house to regulate heat correctly.

the body has an enormous capacity to adapt. And there many studies done that prove this concept out.

So while I agree that for a healthy person, it's generally acceptable to "listen to your body", that's not necessarily the case for someone who has issues with over eating or under eating. There is a concept called metabolic adaptation that occurs during prolonged periods of under or over feeding, for someone who chronically under eats you can't just tell them to "eat when you're hungry". Likewise, as the body very slowly reduces it's RMR to account for under-nutrition, most people never recognize when they are feeling sluggish or have a lack of energy (at least not unless they are looking for it or measuring it). Similar to theory of a frog and a slowly boiling pot of water (and yes, I recognize that this is a myth, it's here for insight only not direct comparison), you don't realize you're in danger until well into the process if that process is slow enough.

Cited studies:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/3/801.full.pdf+html?sid=2f6841ba-c49b-4533-8fee-5d6166710164

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/309.full.pdf+html?sid=1b56c0fa-7a4e-4d28-9866-08d978de9a98

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/745.full.pdf+html?sid=1b56c0fa-7a4e-4d28-9866-08d978de9a98

Interesting reading. Completely supports what's been said about energy expenditure and the body's ability to adapt to environmental energy stressors. My post is of course a generalization directed toward all the people actively taking part in changing their behavior who are needlessly stressing out about exactly how many calories they are taking in. There is no evidence to suggest that someone who is endeavoring on a new weight loss or fitness journey will be adversely affected by the occasional under 1200 calorie day or not eating exercise calories. It is more important for those individuals to be aware of the nutritional components of what they're putting in their bodies than to worry about starvation mode. Except for the clinically ill (i.e. those with eating disorders and/or malnourishment) and those without access to energy sources have to seriously worrying about the effects of starvation mode.

I'm so delighted to start a conversation around this issue, I deliberately entitled "myth" to incite discussion.

As someone who understands the judicious use of hyperbole, I have no problem with your title.

modernfemme

For me, it's about 1200 calories not working into my lifestyle. I wouldn't be able to have a glass of wine ever again And to me, being super skinny isn't worth not enjoying the food I love. I just want to be healthy.

Azdak

I also think it's important to realize that most of the studies I have seen (and the ones cited by Banks) that look at "starvation" effects are looking at very low calorie diets--I mean in the 300-700 calories per day range.

Whether it's undereating or Tabata, there is a pernicious tendency in the health and fitness area for people to inappropriately generalize the results of one study or a set of studies to situations that are completely different than the conditions under which the research was conducted.

I see numerous posts on here all the type of people saying that they went into "starvation mode" because they skipped breakfast. I personally think that "starvation mode" is one of the most misused phrases used on this site. In my first 8 weeks on my weight loss program, I lost an average of 3.75 pounds per week (not planned--it just happened that way). My daily intake was 1500-1800 cals/day (starting weight about 260), which means my average deficit was about 1800-1900 per day. I did 6-8 hours of fairly intense cardio per week and lifted weights about 3 times every two weeks (not quite 2x/wk average). I had plenty of energy for my workouts (as long as I kept my carbs at a minimum of 50% of my total calories), put on at least 5 pounds of muscle during that time. Oh, and I never ate more than about 80g of protein per day (less than 20% of total calories).

IsMollyReallyHungry

bump!

guardup

Also, on bodybuilding.com, the women who are working to lose weight are eating 1600-2000 calories, and doing so very, very successfully (that includes exercise calories). Why do people here think that they have to eat 1200 calories to lose? It's unnecessary for most, in my opinion.

This is because these women are burning 1000+ calories a day in their weight lifting routine. If they were eating only 1200 calories they would soon starve to death.

I'm not talking about the competitive body builders, the ones I am referring to are normal women, with school, jobs, and kids who are trying to get in shape in an hour or less a day.

The average woman will burn 250-400 calories an hour weight lifting (depending on style of lifting). If they have a base line of 1800 calories (more if they have significant muscles mass) and they want to create a deficit of at least 250 calories a day (1/2 pound a week), then consuming 1800 - 2000 calories a day will give them a steady loss of 1/2 lb to 1 lb a week.

My point is that weight lifting is just like any other exercise... do more exercise, you burn more calories and you get to consume more calories and still maintain a weight loss deficit.

Eating only 1200 calories isn't necessary if you exercise. If you are building muscle, it might be detrimental if you arent getting enough amino acids and antioxidents.

Alioth

This is an excellent discussion. I love the way this website encourages everyone to think long-term about taking care of their bodies. Nothing about metabolism or exercise is a "no-brainer." I agree with the generalizations in the first post. And I've also had brief stints with extreme eating habits from eating nothing all day and having no appetite due to serious health issues, to eating all day long because I was hungry all day long day after day with no control.

Now I'm here and fighting to gain a sense of balance where my body is happy and strong. I value everyone's experiences with these issues and the stories they tell. I also value the scientific studies that point us in the right direction. Thanks for sharing, guys.

guardup

Funny point... today I finished planning my late night snack after dinner. Despite a rather decadent snack, I still have 666 calories left and this is with a 500 deficit (totaling 1166 calorie deficit for the day). However, I am way over on all of my nutrients and I most certainly wont be hungry after I finish my snack. In fact, I might have to cut it short to keep from going to bed full.

I only ate 1386 calories today... but they were nutrient packed calories. And I burned over 750 calories with exercise (really good lifting day). The only meal I skipped was my morning snack.

I'm looking at my foods and thinking that I could easily meet my nutrition needs with 1400 calories a day. I didn't think it was possible to get that much protein in so few calories (thank you Soy Milk, Egg Whites and Kale Soup!).

So I have to say that I am rethinking the low calorie diet. With high nutrient foods and careful planning, I bet it is possible to live quite comfortably at a low calorie intake as long as once you meet your goals, you increase your intake to meet your burn rate.

By the way, has anyone else checked out this veggie: Rapini

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/7360/2

It is AMAZING in how many nutrients are packed into 144 calories. Now if I can just find a tasty way to prepare it.

edorice

.

Ms_Natalie

Come on guys...there are so many topics dedicated to starvation mode at the moment...eek!

No wonder people are confused!

:indifferent:

cgwhite

I am going to relight this thread... I believe that you have the wrong end of the stick here... Starvation starts to kick in when you eat 1200 calories less than your BMR. NOT less than 1200 calories per day total. That cannot be right as everyone is not the same. A 400 lb person would not survive on just 1200 calories per day.

A human metabolism is built around change. We need a Base metabolic calorie intake to maintain our bodies. If you do no exercise above your basal metabolic rate you will maintain your weight. You will also have a ratio of lean body mass to fat that will not change very much. The body, due to the variability of food intake and exercise, will have a stable metabolism within a range of calorie intakes. This has been shown to be about 500 calories above your BMR + exercise calories, to about 1000 calories below this. Within this range the body will use fat as a stabiliser. Either adding to your fat store or reducing fat to balance the calorie difference. Thus eating 500 calories per day more will slowly add about a lb a week to your fat store. You slowly gain weight. 1000 a day less will reduce your weight by 2lb a week and the body is quite happy with this. Your metabolism will stay the same.

So, from this we can see why MFP works so well. Eat up to 1000 calories less per day and you WILL lose weight.

What happens when you have a deficit of 1200 or more calories per day is that your body will initially burn more fat. This will keep going for a period of time until your metabolism decides that it cannot cope with burning that much fat. So it slows down your metabolism to reduce the deficit. You become more lethargic and more tired and loose less weight per week. Eventually the body decides that it can't cope with this way of living and starts more drastic ways of dealing with the deficit. It starts to reduce muscle mass in order to reduce your BMR. BMR is mainly determined by your lean body mass not your fat. Not only this but it will also stop burning fat as it has a preservation mode that has decided that fat is more precious than muscle. You start to become a lightweight / fat person. Your fat % actually starts to increase as your lean body mass goes down.

As you can see this method of dieting is not good for you. You are STARVING.

I am a heavyweight / lean person. I am 52, 6' tall and weigh 198 lbs BUT I only have 28 lbs of fat. (14% fat). This means that I am overweight on my BMI but lean on Fat %. Hence my heavyweight / lean tag. By eating 1000 calories less per day I lose about 2lb a week of fat to start with. Without doing any exercise there is a point at which I will start to lose lean muscle. I will still loose weight and eventually I will come within my BMI range. Is that good? All the evidence suggests not. Think of power to weight ratios. It is easier to move around a 6' high body if you have more muscle to move it. Once you have muscle on your body it is important to maintain it.

This is where exercise comes into play. It ensures that the body burns fat by maintaining lean body mass. BUT, you have to eat the calories that you burn exercising or you will slip into the 1200 deficit area. Then all the exercise does is turn you into an endurance athlete. Very fit, but with low lean body mass, skinny weight and no fat!

My two penny worth.

Regards,

Chris.

LisaKyle11

Hi Guardup-

I have a question for you... a little off topic, but not much. Regarding weight training (since it seems that its something you have knowledge about and do often), is it something you do 3-4 times a week...or more? Do you also work in cardio workouts - or do you feel that more than a 20 min cardio session is essentially a waste of time (precious time if you are a busy mom like me!)?

I have been doing power yoga about 3 times a week (60-90 min sessions). These sessions seem like strength training to me...lots of full/whole body movements and core training. After these sessions, I would rather just do a few 20-30 minute hikes during the week rather than embarking on full 45-60 min cardio workouts. Any thoughts?

Again, I am a busy Mom of 4 and don't have a ton of extra time on my hands.

I guess my other, possibly, hidden question is...should I just start lifting to see real results??

Thanks!

iplayoutside19

Your body has a built-in feedback regulation system. Weight loss, fitness and lifestyle changes are about listening to your body and understanding what it needs, not forcing yourself to stringently follow guidelines. You and your body should be the best of pals, try to listen to what it's saying and you'll succeed at being a healthier you.

Do this^, and you're most of the way there.

I don't get caught up in the details. If you're hungry, eat. If eating makes you go over your calorie goal, plan better next time. If you're consistantly hungry with your calorie goal, change it. It's possible to eat with a slight deficit and never be hungry. No reason for this process to be uncomfortable.

shaunshaikh

It's easy to say some of the things the OP said, but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people here close to their goal weight (comparitively) that have stalled in their weight loss, despite the low calorie diet and tons of exercise that they do, and come here looking for answers. They don't "eat their exercise calories" because they're not hungry and don't see the point. However, there are countless examples of people increasing their calorie intake and getting back on the weight loss track. I think this is a big issue for people who are trying to make their calorie deficiet 50%+ of their daily maintainance budget.

I understand people get frustrated with the issue, but it seems like almost every single day somebody comes here looking for help, asking why they have stalled. You look at their diary and they are eating 700-1000 calories a day and working out every single day.

ladyhawk00

unfortunately, like any system that is broken, you can't just say "Eat when you're hungry" to an obese person any more than you can count on a broken thermostat in a house to regulate heat correctly.

the body has an enormous capacity to adapt. And there many studies done that prove this concept out.

So while I agree that for a healthy person, it's generally acceptable to "listen to your body", that's not necessarily the case for someone who has issues with over eating or under eating. There is a concept called metabolic adaptation that occurs during prolonged periods of under or over feeding, for someone who chronically under eats you can't just tell them to "eat when you're hungry". Likewise, as the body very slowly reduces it's RMR to account for under-nutrition, most people never recognize when they are feeling sluggish or have a lack of energy (at least not unless they are looking for it or measuring it). Similar to theory of a frog and a slowly boiling pot of water (and yes, I recognize that this is a myth, it's here for insight only not direct comparison), you don't realize you're in danger until well into the process if that process is slow enough.

Cited studies:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/3/801.full.pdf+html?sid=2f6841ba-c49b-4533-8fee-5d6166710164

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/309.full.pdf+html?sid=1b56c0fa-7a4e-4d28-9866-08d978de9a98

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/5/745.full.pdf+html?sid=1b56c0fa-7a4e-4d28-9866-08d978de9a98

This is so key to understanding why MFP is useful and so helpful for anyone needing to change eating habits! As someone said in a thread a while back (Trent, I think) - Our bodies are lying *kitten* sometimes! :laugh: :grumble:

And lots of other good comments (despite my groan when I saw the title.)