Starvation Mode: Fact? Fiction?

onlyboys1

Hello all!

It's my first post here, but I've been reading for a while. I'm doing well on my diet plus new exercise regimen, but I keep hearing about "starvation mode." I think I fall into the "a calorie is a calorie" camp, and a deficit will result in weight loss (in my understanding). If this is true, then does the mythical "starvation" mode exist for someone who has an adequate amount of calorie stores?

I'm curious whether or not going well below my calories for a day, exercising and not eating back my exercise calories, could jeopardize my weight loss. I'm not having any issues yet--losing at a reasonable 6lbs in the first month.

Thoughts?

Supertact

100% fact based on Africans.

Cheekies_

Great article about 'starvation mode". Check it out. It helped me.

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

yarwell

The "you won't lose any weight because you aren't eating enough" version is probably mythical, although your metabolic rate and activity level might drop a hundred or two calories when you're restricting calorie intake.

There are reams of studies of people on VLC diets losing weight at below 1,000 calories which to me is evidence that the first version is nonsense.

The most challenging case would be someone with low fat levels trying to sustain a large calorie deficit. Something has to give.

Madame_Goldbricker

How far is 'going well below'?

You'll probably end up extremely lethargic prior to any other effects. Not my idea of fun personally.

StaciMarie1974

Starvation mode: the theory that you will hoard fat if you eat too little = myth.

On the other hand, I do believe that if over time you fail to give your body proper nutrition, you'll suffer negative effects. You'll lose weight, sure, but the body works at its best when it has what it needs.

Sam_I_Am77

The real issue is in the realm of negative impact to one's metabolism in a prolonged hypo-caloric state. People should "diet" on as many calories possible, so in other words; start with as small as a deficit as possible and work down from there. Unfortunately everybody wants immediate results, hence why so many crash diets are popular, 7-minute works, etc., etc. Unfortunately I believe the statistic is something like 80% of people that diet like that gain the weight back and that's part of the reason. The other reason is because people choose diets that are not sustainable in the long-term (i.e. Atkins, strict Paleo, etc).

tuckeychicken

Well I am not an expert, but Halie Pomroy is she is a nutritionist and the author of the book The Fast Metabolism Diet. This is a quote from her book about not eating. This is what she says, " Starving yourself does terrible things to your muscles. You know that feeling you get when you're hungry, but don't eat? At some point, you stop being hungry, right? You sure do, but it's not because you didn't eat. You did eat. YOur body turned to its own tissues for fuel.

This would be great if your body just cannibalized all the excess fat in the places you don't wat it to be. But unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Instead, the body goes for the muscle first. Becasue fat is stored for emergencies, your bod considers snacking on your own muscle tissue as a preferable option, Yum, bicep sandwich!" Well I hope that helps. By the way I found this book at the Library and it is a great read, even if you don't do the diet. I am on the diet and it is working so far and real well. I do suggest that if you do the diet, that you start cooking some things ahead of time and label and freeze them even if you don't start the diet for a couple of weeks. Any way best wishes to you hope you don't eat any muscles.

onlyboys1

My diet is under 1200 calories, which doesn't feel restrictive at all. I'm 5'1" and have about 60 lbs to lose. Sometimes I don't reach 1200 calories, but I don't feel that hungry. I'm running 4 miles about 4-5 times per week (but I run SLOW); it takes me about an hour to go 4 miles.

I feel fine, but do want this to be sustainable. I don't view this as a crash diet to lose weight.

I'll check out the links and the book. Thanks!

lemonsnowdrop

My diet is under 1200 calories, which doesn't feel restrictive at all. I'm 5'1" and have about 60 lbs to lose. Sometimes I don't reach 1200 calories, but I don't feel that hungry. I'm running 4 miles about 4-5 times per week (but I run SLOW); it takes me about an hour to go 4 miles.

I feel fine, but do want this to be sustainable. I don't view this as a crash diet to lose weight.

I'll check out the links and the book. Thanks!

The problem with eating so little is maintaining proper nutrition. While it won't hinder weight loss, not getting enough protein will also lead to muscle loss. Make sure you're meeting your macro goals for the day.

zman1313

Well I am not an expert, but Halie Pomroy is she is a nutritionist and the author of the book The Fast Metabolism Diet. This is a quote from her book about not eating. This is what she says, " Starving yourself does terrible things to your muscles. You know that feeling you get when you're hungry, but don't eat? At some point, you stop being hungry, right? You sure do, but it's not because you didn't eat. You did eat. YOur body turned to its own tissues for fuel.

This would be great if your body just cannibalized all the excess fat in the places you don't wat it to be. But unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Instead, the body goes for the muscle first. Becasue fat is stored for emergencies, your bod considers snacking on your own muscle tissue as a preferable option, Yum, bicep sandwich!" Well I hope that helps. By the way I found this book at the Library and it is a great read, even if you don't do the diet. I am on the diet and it is working so far and real well. I do suggest that if you do the diet, that you start cooking some things ahead of time and label and freeze them even if you don't start the diet for a couple of weeks. Any way best wishes to you hope you don't eat any muscles.

I'd love to see some studies that back up those claims. If you're starving youtself for days, then sure you're going to start "eating" your muscles, but the way she worded that claim makes it sound like that mid-afternoon hunger that many people get and push past is "eating" thier muscles. I've never read anything that substantiates that claim.

Aaron_K123

Starvation mode.

Fact. Your bodies metabolism can slow by up to 40% of its normal basal metabolic rate while under long term starvation conditions. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis. This is backed up by the Minnesota starvation experiment.

Fiction: If you don't eat enough your body will enter "starvation mode" where it will "hold on" to fat stores or any fat that you injest resulting in fat gain or fat maintenance. This is false, backed up by no studies at all and perpetuated as a myth on the internet. By definition if you are "not eating enough" then you are eating below maintenance at which point your body will of course rely on its energy storage in the form of fat. You may burn muscle as well but that doesn't mean you will "hold on" to fat.

jammer2net

Agree

Starvation mode.

Fact. Your bodies metabolism can slow by up to 40% of its normal basal metabolic rate while under long term starvation conditions. This is known as adaptive thermogenesis. This is backed up by the Minnesota starvation experiment.

Fiction: If you don't eat enough your body will enter "starvation mode" where it will "hold on" to fat stores or any fat that you injest resulting in fat gain or fat maintenance. This is false, backed up by no studies at all and perpetuated as a myth on the internet.

vismal

Can you starve? Sure you can. If you don't eat for enough time will it kill you? Yup, sure will, but by the time it finally does, you can bet your *kitten* you will weigh a hell of a lot less then when you first stopped eating. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons why very low calorie dieting is bad, but weight loss stopping is not one of them.

michikade

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' minimum level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Aaron_K123

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Glycogen is carbohydrate stored within muscle tissue, it is not itself muscle tissue. Your body will utilize stored carbohydrates first however this does not result in muscle mass depletion. The only reason your body would consume its own muscle is for essential amino acids in a malnourished state or potentially while at large caloric deficit if you are not actively using your muscle (reabsorbed, lose it if you don't use it).

If you deplete glycogen you will find that you will exhaust quickly if you try to do something like weight-lifting but this does not mean that your muscle has gone away, it means that your body has already utilized its primary energy source.

Also...."Sugar muscles"?

vismal

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Glycogen is carbohydrate stored within muscle tissue, it is not itself muscle tissue. Your body will utilize stored carbohydrates first however this does not result in muscle mass depletion. The only reason your body would consume its own muscle is for essential amino acids in a malnourished state.

If you deplete glycogen you will find that you will exhaust quickly if you try to do something like weight-lifting but this does not mean that your muscle has gone away, it means that your body has already utilized its primary energy source.

Also...."Sugar muscles"?

QFT

Aaron_K123

The reason why the body starts chomping on muscles first rather than the fat stores is due to the composition of the molecules needed.

Glycogen is stored in muscles --- and glycogen is easily broken into glucose and a quick release of ATP (energy).

Triglycerides (fat), however, require several hormones to stimulate release of lipase enzymes, and the glycerol portion of the molecule has to undergo several chemical changes to become glucose for the brain to use.

Basically, it's easier for the body to snack on tasty, tasty sugar muscles, especially if it's in a deprivation state. That's why it's suggested that you eat a certain amount, and why there are schools of thought that suggest eating back calories from workouts. There's a lot of debate as to where the 'healthy' level is (generally stated at 1200 calories for a female, a bit more for a male, but there are other ideas out there with higher or lower 'minimums').

Now, the mid-afternoon munchies aren't going to eat your muscles, because you're still digesting lunch. Just because your stomach has emptied into your intestine doesn't mean your intestine has emptied to the outside world yet. You'd have to go a while before you have any ill effects of a no-calorie or very low calorie diet.

Glycogen is carbohydrate stored within muscle tissue, it is not itself muscle tissue. Your body will utilize stored carbohydrates first however this does not result in muscle mass depletion. The only reason your body would consume its own muscle is for essential amino acids in a malnourished state.

If you deplete glycogen you will find that you will exhaust quickly if you try to do something like weight-lifting but this does not mean that your muscle has gone away, it means that your body has already utilized its primary energy source.

Also...."Sugar muscles"?

QFT

One thing I will say that might be why people get this impression is that glycogen requires a lot of water to solubilize. The result of this is when your muscle has full glycogen stores it has a lot of retained water which basically puffs it up like a baloon, makes it feel harder and fuller and gives it a larger more defined look. If you skimp on carbs and eat at a deficit your body will consume the glycogen and release the retained water resulting in your muscles basically deflating, becoming softer, smaller and less defined. This happens with zero loss to actual muscle tissue.

The opposite of this is lifting heavy weight where blood pumps into your muscle and then eating carbs where your glycogen stores will be replenished resulting in a huge influx of water for both solubilization of glycogen and repair. This gives your muscle a big "pump" that makes them look much larger than before and why I think people get so convinced that eating right after a workout just adds so much to their gains. Its not actual muscle tissue gain, its just refilling the glycogen. That is still important but yeah, big difference between that and changing the actual tissue density.

michikade

Wow, sarcasm doesn't read well - didn't think anyone would read that phrase and hold onto it.

The idea that starvation mode will make you hold onto fat is false, but the body uses the glycogen stores for energy in muscles first (i.e. sugar muscles due to the glycogen store) before it utilizes the fat stores in a deprivation state.

Apparently being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it didn't pass off on the internet correctly.

vismal

Wow, sarcasm doesn't read well - didn't think anyone would read that phrase and hold onto it.

The idea that starvation mode will make you hold onto fat is false, but the body uses the glycogen stores for energy in muscles first (i.e. sugar muscles due to the glycogen store) before it utilizes the fat stores in a deprivation state.

Apparently being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it didn't pass off on the internet correctly.

Of course the body uses stored glycogen before fat but how is that relevant to starvation mode? Also you do not have to completely exhaust your glycogen stores for the body to utilize fat for energy. To not over complicate things, all one really needs to know is that if you eat in a deficit you will lose weight. If you eat adequate protein and lift weights, the majority of that weight will be fat.

Aaron_K123

Wow, sarcasm doesn't read well - didn't think anyone would read that phrase and hold onto it.

The idea that starvation mode will make you hold onto fat is false, but the body uses the glycogen stores for energy in muscles first (i.e. sugar muscles due to the glycogen store) before it utilizes the fat stores in a deprivation state.

Apparently being somewhat tongue-in-cheek about it didn't pass off on the internet correctly.

What part of your post was sarcasm? Unless you are being tongue-in-cheek again in your restatement I still disagree with you, utilization of glycogen does not prevent fat mobilization.

michikade

I never said that the use of glycogen prevents fat mobilization, I said the body goes for the glycogen stores first - in the muscles and in the liver - before it goes for fat, which is where the whole fear mongering thing about how "going into starvation mode will devastate your muscles" school of thought comes from.

I also said originally that this is in a deprivation state, but I should clarify that by saying that it's in a state of inadequate nutrition over a period of time, not in a calorie deficit state through normal diet and exercise, and by no means is this an immediate issue.

If a person watches their macronutrients, this isn't a problem.

Aaron_K123

I never said that the use of glycogen prevents fat mobilization, I said the body goes for the glycogen stores first - in the muscles and in the liver - before it goes for fat, which is where the whole fear mongering thing about how "going into starvation mode will devastate your muscles" school of thought comes from.

I also said originally that this is in a deprivation state, but I should clarify that by saying that it's in a state of inadequate nutrition over a period of time, not in a calorie deficit state through normal diet and exercise, and by no means is this an immediate issue.

If a person watches their macronutrients, this isn't a problem.

Well I agree with most of this but I disagree that glycogen depletion is what concerns people warning against overly aggressive diets. When I see a 20 year old man on a 1200 calorie diet I'm not concerned about glycogen depletion I am concerned about literal muscle tissue catabolism and reabsorption. Not because I think that prevents fat loss just because if you put your body in a state where it starts to consume its own muscle you are doing your health and fitness real harm.

Weight loss stopping because you aren't eating enough is a myth. Muscle loss occurring because you aren't eating enough is real and I'm not referring to glycogen I mean sarcomers and myosin actin filiments.

Sam_I_Am77

High levels of insulin can hamper fat mobilization but not glycogen.

Well I agree with most of this but I disagree that glycogen depletion is what concerns people warning against overly aggressive diets. When I see a 20 year old man on a 1200 calorie diet I'm not concerned about glycogen depletion I am concerned about literal muscle tissue catabolism and reabsorption. Not because I think that prevents fat loss just because if you put your body in a state where it starts to consume its own muscle you are doing your health and fitness real harm.

Weight loss stopping because you aren't eating enough is a myth. Muscle loss occurring because you aren't eating enough is real and I'm not referring to glycogen I mean sarcomers and myosin actin filiments.

Exactly, people can lose weight by undereating, that should be obvious. If anybody doesn't believe that Google pictures of "Ethiopians and Starvation" and then come back to this thread. The issue with gross under-eating is the long-term affect on metabolism and exactly how are you losing the weight, mostly loss in muscle mass or mostly fat mass? The preferred result should be obvious as well.

belgerian

From what ive read dont even get close to starvation mode until your BF hits 10 percent.

DanaDark

"Starvation mode" is a fact. However, it is one that nobody on MFP will be experiencing anytime soon. It is the metabolic and hormonal changes the body engages in due to chronic (long term) significant calorie shortfalls; large enough shortfalls to cause the body to begin eating its own bones to supply the brain with nutrients.

What people on MFP experience when referring to "Starvation Mode" is actually the effects of malnutrition. This can occur in almost anyone. A person with a surplus of calories can actually be malnourished if they are not getting enough vitamins and minerals. As well, most people tend to be short on one, two, or a few vitamins and minerals causing them to be technically slightly malnourished.

With VLCD (Verly Low Calorie Diets), it becomes more difficult to achieve the right amount of nutrition, thus more likely to be malnourished. Remember, even people in a calorie surplus can be malnourished, so it is not a stretch to imagine someone eating very little and not getting enough nutrition.

So, how does this alter weight loss? Imagine workers building a house, they have the energy (calories stored as fat) but they don't have the materials (vitamins, minerals, and proteins). So, despite having the energy, they won't do any work, because they physically can't without the materials. The body is the same way.

The result? Less calories spent per day. This results in weight loss slowdown, or even plateau. A person could theoretically cut 500 calories from their diet, but due to poor nutrition, are now spending 300 calories less, thus only a 200 calorie deficit when they think its 500. This can ALWAYS be overcome by cutting the calories even further. But that will result in further malnutrition and cause horrible side effects like organ damage, hair loss, etc. but why go through that when you can eat a reasonable amount and get proper nutrition to achieve better results?

This is why very low calorie diets are only advised for people under watch by their doctor, not for Average Joe looking to knock off 50 pounds.

So there you have it. This is all LONG TERM. Your body does not shut down and die if you are an hour late for breakfast.

andreakurylo

Hello all!

It's my first post here, but I've been reading for a while. I'm doing well on my diet plus new exercise regimen, but I keep hearing about "starvation mode." I think I fall into the "a calorie is a calorie" camp, and a deficit will result in weight loss (in my understanding). If this is true, then does the mythical "starvation" mode exist for someone who has an adequate amount of calorie stores?

I'm curious whether or not going well below my calories for a day, exercising and not eating back my exercise calories, could jeopardize my weight loss. I'm not having any issues yet--losing at a reasonable 6lbs in the first month.

Thoughts?

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

Please read this article. I'm so sick of people talking about this "Starvation Mode" thing and how you need to increase calories to lose weight...it's all complete b/s!!! U need protein to burn fat, and lean proteins make u feel A LOT fuller than carbs. So limiting carbs isn't necessarily a bad thing if you aren't feeling "full." I've been eating under 1200 calories everyday, but I also exercise 5-7 days/week. 30 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of different weight training techniques. You would be surprised at how full you can get by increasing your protein intake to about 30-35% of your daily intake of calories. PROTEIN burns fat and builds muscle, and is a healthy and essential way to lose weight and feel full. I'm usually under 50 carb/day...not per meal...per day! Chicken and Ground Turkey have NO CARBS and make u feel full for a longer amount of time than just eating veggies and fruits. I eat a ton of fruits, make smoothies out of strawberries, bananas and blueberries (blueberries have enormous amounts of antioxidants and aid in weight loss) with a little Organic Strawberry Banana juice. I cut up all my fruits as soon as I buy them and freeze them, so when I'm actually drinking a smoothie, it's 100% fruits and antioxidants...not watered down with ice. That's usually my way of snacking and what I give my 4 year old son instead of ice cream. I LOVE TACOS!!! So I've found some pretty amazing whole grain carb smart wraps...one only has 11 carbs/wrap and one is 14 carbs/wrap and the one that's 14 carbs is only 50 calories too!!! So I'm getting whole grains, which help control insulin levels, ground turkey is the meat that I use...and it has no carbs at all and just a little serving or 2 of cheese. It doesn't matter if the cheese is 100-110 calories/serving because this meal is way under 500 calories!!! And what's more is that it's super filling!!! A mistake that people often make when it comes to tacos, is buying pre-packaged seasoning, and unfortunately, a mistake that I've made most of my life! I LOVE Old El Paso's Taco Seasoning...love it. And when my son's father was diagnosed with Meniere's Disease 3 years ago, I started using the one labled "25% less sodium." With Meniere's Disease, you have to cut your sodium intake immensely and this helped. However, from a diet stand point it breaks down to this: 1 package is 6 servings (and u use that whole thing in 1lb of ground meat) 15 calories per serving, 270mg of sodium, and 3 carbs. Doesn't sound like much right? Until you multiply those numbers by 6!!! So I opt'd to make the seasoning myself (which is waaayyy better tasting and healthier!) using chili powder, red pepper, garlic powder (not garlic salt!) and onion powder. You can put in as little or as much as you'd like for flavor and there's no added calories, sodium or carbs! Top w/some organic salsa or even some bottled taco sauce (but watch how much u use of the bottled stuff cause it does contain carbs, but being that this is an extremely low carb containing meal, 2 servings is no big deal) I also chop up tomatos and dice green chilies and add them to the meat for even more flavor and nutrients!!! The only thing I look for with cheese is the reduced fat kind. And here's a direct quote of why u need some fat....

"Triglycerides, cholesterol and other essential fatty acids—the scientific term for fats the body can't make on its own—store energy, insulate us and protect our vital organs. They act as messengers, helping proteins do their jobs. They also start chemical reactions that help control growth, immune function, reproduction and other aspects of basic metabolism.
The cycle of making, breaking, storing and mobilizing fats is at the core of how humans and all animals regulate their energy. An imbalance in any step can result in disease, including heart disease and diabetes. For instance, having too many triglycerides in our bloodstream raises our risk of clogged arteries, which can lead to heart attack and stroke.
Fats help the body stockpile certain nutrients as well. The so-called "fat-soluble" vitamins—A, D, E and K—are stored in the liver and in fatty tissues.
Knowing that fats play such an important role in many basic functions in the body, researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health study them in humans and other organisms to learn more about normal and abnormal biology.
Despite fat's importance, no one yet understands exactly how humans store it and call it into action. In search of insight, Oklahoma State University biochemist Estela Arrese studies triglyceride metabolism in unexpected places: silkworms, fruit flies, and mosquitoes.
The main type of fat we consume, triglycerides are especially suited for energy storage because they pack more than twice as much energy as carbohydrates or proteins.
Once triglycerides have been broken down during digestion, they are shipped out to cells through the bloodstream. Some of the fat gets used for energy right away. The rest is stored inside cells in blobs called lipid droplets. When we need extra energy—for instance, when we run a marathon—our bodies use enzymes called lipases to break down the stored triglycerides. The cell's power plants, mitochondria, can then create more of the body's main energy source: adenosine triphosphate, or ATP."


Eating leafy green veggies and fruits lower on the glycemic index is also SUPER important for weight loss and overall health benefits. Here's some essential info about the glycemic index...which was brought to my attention by my Endocrinologist.

The glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100 according to the extent to which they raise blood sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high GI are those which are rapidly digested and absorbed and result in marked fluctuations in blood sugar levels. Low-GI foods, by virtue of their slow digestion and absorption, produce gradual rises in blood sugar and insulin levels, and have proven benefits for health. Low GI diets have been shown to improve both glucose and lipid levels in people with diabetes (type 1 and type 2). They have benefits for weight control because they help control appetite and delay hunger. Low GI diets also reduce insulin levels and insulin resistance.

Recent studies from Harvard School of Public Health indicate that the risks of diseases such as type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease are strongly related to the GI of the overall diet. In 1999, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) recommended that people in industrialised countries base their diets on low-GI foods in order to prevent the most common diseases of affluence, such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

This link will tell you all about the glycemic index of carb containing foods: http://www.glycemicindex.com/index.php

Berries and Strawberries are really low on the glycemic index...making u feel fuller longer and more satisfied, while bananas are on the moderate side, slightly spiking your glucose levels...but not enough to be super concerned. They are to be eaten in moderation, while watermelon's GI ranges from 72-80 and cantaloupe's GI ranges between 65-70!!! Those should be avoided or eaten in moderation along with lower GI foods.

I was diagnosed with Insulin Resistance 2 months ago and have a best friend who is a Team Beach Body Coach and I'm full of helpful information!!! If u have any questions or concerns feel free to message me and I'll hook u up with all types of info. Believe me, you can easily get filled on 1200 calories/day as long as u eat the right ones!!! The link above for glycemicindex.com will also allow u to search for your fav foods and see how they are rated on the GI scale. It's not just a blog talking about the benefits of eating low GI foods...it has all sorts of tools to help you!!! Good Luck w/everything!!!