Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

mikeyml

OP is absolutely misrepresenting the facts.

I read all the cited studies and they were ONLY targeting research of starving the body of ALL food for any distinct period of time.

The second one cited even used "30-min infusion of epinephrine at 25 ng.min-1.kg body wt-1".

Trying to say that these studies prove ANYTHING referring to "starvation mode" is an OUT-AND-OUT LIE.

The studies said nothing about exercise cals being eaten or not eaten.... in fact all subjects were "sedentary".

Making such false statements is where this debate got started.

Read these for the TRUTH:

The following describe the various risks inherent in LCDs and VLCDs (eating below BMR, typically), especially without supervision of a doctor and dietician. And these are mostly for obese/morbidly obese people - The dangers for a relatively lean person can be far higher.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/47/6/981.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/56/1/230S.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/39/5/695.full.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl488623pn1q0219/


Long-Term Weight Patterns and Risk for Cholecystectomy in Women
Background: Obesity and rapid weight loss in obese persons are known risk factors for gallstones. However, the effect of intentional, long-term, moderate weight changes on the risk for gallstones is unclear.

Objective: To study long-term weight patterns in a cohort of women and to examine the relation between weight pattern and risk for cholecystectomy.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 11 U.S. states.

Participants: 47 153 female registered nurses who did not undergo cholecystectomy before 1988.

Measurements: Cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994 (ascertained by patient self-report).

Results: During the exposure period (1972 to 1988), there was evidence of substantial variation in weight due to intentional weight loss during adulthood. Among cohort patients, 54.9% reported weight cycling with at least one episode of intentional weight loss associated with regain. Of the total cohort, 20.1% were light cyclers (5 to 9 lb of weight loss and gain), 18.8% were moderate cyclers (10 to 19 lb of weight loss and gain), and 16.0% were severe cyclers (≥ 20 lb of weight loss and gain). Net weight gain without cycling occurred in 29.3% of women; net weight loss without cycling was the least common pattern (4.6%). Only 11.1% of the cohort maintained weight within 5 lb over the 16-year period. In the study, 1751 women had undergone cholecystectomy between 1988 and 1994. Compared with weight maintainers, the relative risk for cholecystectomy (adjusted for body mass index, age, alcohol intake, fat intake, and smoking) was 1.20 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.50) among light cyclers, 1.31 among moderate cyclers (CI, 1.05 to 1.64), and 1.68 among severe cyclers (CI, 1.34 to 2.10).

Conclusion: Weight cycling was highly prevalent in this large cohort of middle-aged women. The risk for cholecystectomy associated with weight cycling was substantial, independent of attained relative body weight.
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v22/n6/pdf/0800634a.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696424?dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7489033&dopt=Citation

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t462u540t7151722/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/

http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/620?ck=nck

http://www.ajcn.org/content/53/4/826.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2341229&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2613433?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html

http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6694559&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ajcn.org/content/57/2/127.full.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/167.abstract?ck=nck

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n3/abs/0803720a.html

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/low_calorie.htm

Thank you! This is exactly what I was looking for. It will save me a lot of time looking through scholarly databases tomorrow.

PJilly

My experience has been that I've had (and seen) the most success with keeping weight off by eating enough — not too much, and not too little. I've seen lots of people restrict calories drastically, lose a lot of weight, and then gain it all back again. Of course, those who consistently eat too much will be overweight as well. It just seems to make sense to my brain that the most success will come from something that's sustainable, and to me, that means eating the most I can while still losing (or, now, maintaining) weight. Whether you believe in the starvation mode or not (I happen to), why would you want to eat less than you have to? I really like what normajean called it, starvation "response." That seems a much more accurate description of what I believe it is that happens.

carolsohn

Thanks for posting this!

Gettinfit2

The reason I"m overweight is because I did not listen to my body and I ate when I was not hungry. Now, I eat when I'm hungry. A couple of days the site told me I was going into starvation mode, but my body did not send such signals. I think the lesson is to learn "your" body and listen to the clues. I trust that my body will let me know when I'm begining to starve.

darling_nickie

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

My thoughts exactly

hpsnickers1

Just my two cents, and I am no expert, so bear with me:

Being a 4 foot, 10.5 inch woman who has decent fat rolls, curves, and an 32F cup bra at 115 lbs (pant size between 0-4 at that...grargh), I feel I can speak about this "minimum". Just like I can't drink as much alcohol or coffee or whatever as others, I can say that I do not lose weight at 1,200 kcal unless I am also exercising (like, cardio for at LEAST half an hr/day + weights). I have a bit of muscle on me, too, so it's not like I don't burn calories.

I am the size of a large child and frankly, I have to eat like one or else I will always look like a square.

I have tended to disregard this "minimum" for some time, and I don't quite understand it, at least not for someone my size. Maybe for someone taller or larger-framed, I can see that calorie amount working, but for me to be lean, I have to eat a LOT less. I do take my multivitamins/Omega 3's, and drink plenty of water and eat my protein... it IS possible on fewer calories. Other than my celiac disease, I am very healthy.

It just means that everything on the nutrition scale (fat, amt of protein, etc) adjusts accordingly. I assume that my basic nutritional needs differ from everyone else's. My significant other is 6'1"... and I *know* his minimums for everything are much higher than "average". It doesn't quite make sense that the scale doesn't slide the other way, either.

I think the body responds best to CHANGE, since we are geared to seek homeostasis. Of course our metabolism will eventually become static at a certain calorie level... it's what the human body does. Yes, for many people, I am sure that 1,200 is too little. For me, it isn't. Especially if I am sedentary.

I do agree with other posters that many people DO respond to increasing their calorie intake, and a lot of people can't lose weight on 1,200 calories a day. But for people like me (and smaller than me), it's just plain silly.

Have you thought about strength/resistance training? I'm 5'2" and 123lbs. I'm not that much bigger than you and I burn on my laziest day between 1600-1700 calories. My highest burn was 2323. If you have the money try investing in a BodyMedia Fit Armband (with the display if you want to see up to minute burn. This is worn 24/7 and is more accurate than HRMs). My BMR is 1188. What is your BMR (under the tools section on this site). Eat at least that. That is what your body requires just to live and breathe. Then eat what you burn during exercise.

tsgaddy

You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories)

Let them starve, let them weight cycle, let them burn muscle, let them release endogenous catecholamines and risk heart attacks. We should not care if they are silly enough to glean dietary meaning from 3 studies in tiny numbers of healthy weight male subjects eating absolutely nothing which are obviously done to help dieticians adjust TPN or NG feed doses in ICU.

And engage it if it is fun for you but otherwise, please just ignore them we are unfortunately bumping their silly posts

you sure must burn alot of calories climbing up on your pedestal.good for you:drinker:

I you! LOL

ebgbjo

Everyone keeps talking about BodyMedia. However, not only do you have to spend the money to buy it, you then need to pay the monthly fee on top of purchase price in order for it to work and show you the information you bought it for

Just my two cents, and I am no expert, so bear with me:

Being a 4 foot, 10.5 inch woman who has decent fat rolls, curves, and an 32F cup bra at 115 lbs (pant size between 0-4 at that...grargh), I feel I can speak about this "minimum". Just like I can't drink as much alcohol or coffee or whatever as others, I can say that I do not lose weight at 1,200 kcal unless I am also exercising (like, cardio for at LEAST half an hr/day + weights). I have a bit of muscle on me, too, so it's not like I don't burn calories.

I am the size of a large child and frankly, I have to eat like one or else I will always look like a square.

I have tended to disregard this "minimum" for some time, and I don't quite understand it, at least not for someone my size. Maybe for someone taller or larger-framed, I can see that calorie amount working, but for me to be lean, I have to eat a LOT less. I do take my multivitamins/Omega 3's, and drink plenty of water and eat my protein... it IS possible on fewer calories. Other than my celiac disease, I am very healthy.

It just means that everything on the nutrition scale (fat, amt of protein, etc) adjusts accordingly. I assume that my basic nutritional needs differ from everyone else's. My significant other is 6'1"... and I *know* his minimums for everything are much higher than "average". It doesn't quite make sense that the scale doesn't slide the other way, either.

I think the body responds best to CHANGE, since we are geared to seek homeostasis. Of course our metabolism will eventually become static at a certain calorie level... it's what the human body does. Yes, for many people, I am sure that 1,200 is too little. For me, it isn't. Especially if I am sedentary.

I do agree with other posters that many people DO respond to increasing their calorie intake, and a lot of people can't lose weight on 1,200 calories a day. But for people like me (and smaller than me), it's just plain silly.

Have you thought about strength/resistance training? I'm 5'2" and 123lbs. I'm not that much bigger than you and I burn on my laziest day between 1600-1700 calories. My highest burn was 2323. If you have the money try investing in a BodyMedia Fit Armband (with the display if you want to see up to minute burn. This is worn 24/7 and is more accurate than HRMs). My BMR is 1188. What is your BMR (under the tools section on this site). Eat at least that. That is what your body requires just to live and breathe. Then eat what you burn during exercise.

bellawomenswellness

Great post! Thanks for adding the references!!!

ebgbjo

And I can't find it, but whoever put "You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories) " What a joke! ALL of us here are "real" MFPers. What works for some, doesn't work for all.

WinKitty

*bump*

jrt9999

And I can't find it, but whoever put "You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories) " What a joke! ALL of us here are "real" MFPers. What works for some, doesn't work for all.

I agree it could have been worded better, but I think this person meant to say, or should have meant to say, was that he feels the real MPPers are the ones who actually follow this site as the site creators designed it. After all it was designed to put in your daily activity levels and your goal weight loss. It then figures out your daily deficit needed so you can lose weight even without exercising. The site then adds back the calories with the expectations that they get eaten back.

To each their own I suppose. I just don't understand why the folks who disagree with how this site operates but then tell others that following this site as intended, and losing weight by the way, that we are doing it wrong. You would think they would find a site that caters to their way of thinking if only to relieve the stress of felling like this site has it wrong.

But no matter what, I do sincerely hope all achieve their goals and enjoy life while doing it. I know I will.

ahsongbird

honestly, i'm gonna eat a little when I'm hungry, I don't feel the need to starve myself to be thin, do i always make 1200 cals? No. do I suffer for it ? No. I don't eat back all of my exercise calories I just eat a little after exercising b/c I'm hungry. My body knows what it needs and tells me .

mom2jjl

Bump

HeidiRene

There's no myth. What you are burning is revealed easily via what you expel through your lungs.

What???????

HonkyTonks

Thank you. I can see both sides to this.

I do get a little worried at the number of times someone claims they aren't losing weight, and immediately people say they are in starvation mode. It's just not that easy to go into starvation mode.

I do think that there is truth to the idea that if you create huge deficits you will begin to lose lean muscle mass rather than just body fat. This leads to a decrease in BMR. What happens then is you lose a lot of WEIGHT but you also just end up being a lot of flab. Not cool. I am in that situation at the moment, my body fat is particularly high after losing a lot of weight through a low calorie diet. I am trying to rectify past mistakes by losing fat without losing muscle. I do practice intermittent fasting, but I also now incorporate a strength training routine into my exercise. I am now losing body fat % as well as weight on the scales.

ghottamale

Thank you for your post! I just started a few days ago and have been frustrated not able to eat up to 1200 calories to be upset to see at the end of my healthy day that my body may go into starvation mode. Whew - I feel better. Now I need ti get my sugar under control - I never realized how much sugar I was eating from my greek yogurt and favorite friuts and veggies. Thanks again

HonkyTonks

Thank you for your post! I just started a few days ago and have been frustrated not able to eat up to 1200 calories to be upset to see at the end of my healthy day that my body may go into starvation mode. Whew - I feel better. Now I need ti get my sugar under control - I never realized how much sugar I was eating from my greek yogurt and favorite friuts and veggies. Thanks again

Greek yoghurt fruits and vegetables are good for you. Why would you cut these out for the sake of reducing sugar???

funkycamper

Whether you believe in the starvation mode or not (I happen to), why would you want to eat less than you have to? I really like what normajean called it, starvation "response." That seems a much more accurate description of what I believe it is that happens.

I bolded the gold medal statement in that paragraph. Yes!

After a couple of decades of believing I had a slow metabolism, that I would gain eating what normal people ate (and, well, yeah, I did and it sucked), I found MFP. What a godsend!

At first, I was one of those that ate my 1200 calories and then exercised, priding myself on my 700-900 calorie net days. And I lost a little, slowly, very slowly, but I was losing. Yay! But I was reading all these posts about people eating so much more and still losing. I thought none of it could possibly apply to me. I kept reading posts by people who had done it, backed it up with the research (most of it quoted in this thread), and so wanted to be like them. How freeing it would be to be able to eat and not gain. I still doubted it would work for me because I had gained weight on Weight Watchers in the past. No way could I eat more and lose. Nope, not me. Poor pitiful me.

But then my slow weight loss stalled so I figured I didn't have anything to lose by giving it a try. By now, I had gotten fit enough to be working out rather intensely 5-6 times a week for 60-90 minutes a session. I was doing steady-state cardio, intervals, and lifting light weights/high reps. I started eating my exercise calories. Maybe not all because of the tendency to overestimate calorie burns and underestimate food intake (no matter how carefully we weigh and measure) but most of them. I had a hard time eating them every day so I started zig-zagging my calories aiming for a weekly calorie target rather than a daily one. So I had high calorie days and low calorie days. On the high calorie days, I might splurge with some pizza, a burger, ice cream, cookies, whatever. It's when I allow myself things that aren't typically eaten on a diet. I started losing again. I was thrilled. No more deprivation.

While I was still losing slowly by eating my exercise calories, I also noticed that the effects of my exercise started showing up as I almost immediately finally dropped a pant size. Was this coincidence or due to eating more? Hard to say but I liked eating more and losing pounds (even though it was still slow) and inches so I stuck with that for awhile.

Then I started reading about people, especially some women, eating 2000 calories/day and losing. Wow, wouldn't that be cool? I also started reading about how one should never eat less than their BMI. OK, a day here and there isn't going to hurt you but it made sense to me that it wasn't good for you for the long haul. I also was reading so much about the success people were having with heavy lifting and how important it is to maintain your muscles while losing weight. It all made sense to me.

So I started with heavy lifting. It felt great but I totally stalled with my weight loss. However, even though I only lost 1# in about 6 weeks, I dropped a pant size. Yay me! While my pant size matters to me more than what the scale says, I do still need to lose weight to get to a healthy body-fat level, so the stall didn't bother me too much but, after awhile, I figured I needed to do something to break it. I figured that the great calorie needs of my body with heavy-lifting, and the fact that I hadn't raised my calories anymore since doing it might be the problem. So I raised my net to my BMR. Stall broken. Losing again.

I am now netting about 6000 calories more weekly than I was when I started at MFP and I'm still losing. This is so cool, so much more fun, and makes living in the real world so much easier. Since I'm still zig-zagging my calories throughout the week, I can easily bank some calories to spend later. Just this month, my husband took me to a very fancy special dinner seating at a local restaurant for Valentine's Day. Dinner included appetizers, salad, entree, dessert, and liberal amounts of complimentary champagne. I enjoyed every bite and didn't gain a pound. Later, that same week, made a very rich dinner for my husband's birthday and had several pieces of cake. Gained a pound that was gone a day later. No big deal.

Again, for emphasis, I'm netting about 6000 calories more weekly than I was in August when I started at MFP and still losing. I can splurge and not gain. I can go to social events and have a drink, eat the treats, and not gain or only gain maybe a pound that comes right back off as it's just water weight and bloat (the excess food processing through my system).

As someone who had a damaged metabolism, in the past, meals like this would have meant a gain of a good 5# or more that would not come off easily, if at all. Now these splurges barely register. I also have noticed that these big splurges often result in a lower weight just a few days after. Example, on Sunday I was lazy, plopped myself in front of the TV to watch the Oscar red-carpet shows and didn't move all day. I also ate like a little piggie. And not healthy stuff either. I'm not sure how many calories I ate. I logged about 2600 calories net but later realized that I forgot to log a few things so probably at least 3000 calories that day with zero exercise. When I went to the gym on Monday and weighed myself, I had lost 1#. Now, I'm usually not one who weighs more than once a week or so but this had me curious so I weighed again on Tuesday at the gym, down another 1#.

I'm convinced that a combination of proper exercise and nutrition, combined with eating at a higher caloric level so your body maintains the muscles as much as possible while losing weight, works. OK, my nutrition sucks a little but I'm still working on that.

Anyway, my point is, I'm 54 years old. I'm post-menopausal so I'm at a time in my life where most people say my metabolism would be slowing down and at least a little bit of weight gain is inevitable. Up until very recently, I thought I had to starve to lose weight. I thought if I ate like normal people (my relatively thin friends and family), I would gain weight. I used to enjoy a splurge and easily gain 5# from it that would take forever to come off, if it came off at all. I wallowed in self-pity because I would go to celebrations where food was a part of the festivities and either not indulge, and feel a bit sad and left out, or indulge just a little which left me wanting more, or I would really indulge and gain weight.

Now, through some work and diligence, I can eat much more and still lose. I have more energy than I have had in decades, am getting stronger all the time, and eating more and more and losing inches and pounds and I'm thrilled. I plan on gradually increasing my net calories to see how high I can go and still lose. And I'm looking forward to the day when I reach my goal and can eat without worrying about gaining because I have healed my slow-burning metabolism with one that burns much faster.

My heart goes out to those who are still stuck with the mindset and body that requires VLC eating to lose weight. I was one of those for most of my life. I believe I'm proof-positive that you can raise your metabolism. And, if it's possible, why wouldn't you want to?

wwww1199

hmmmm...I stay under 1200 calories every day, exercise every day, and my health has done nothing but improve
[/quote]

Me too

0EmmeNicole0

Thank you for finally setting the record straight. I researched the hell out of this when i first started MFP and have believed it ever since. I'm glad someone finally posted the truth.

stephl21uk

1200 calories is the absolute minimum amount necessary for the body to function. Of course, it will vary depending on the person, but if one eats below 1200, they can get seriously ill in a short period of time.

i have been eating around 1000 a day for 3 weeks and never felt ill, if anything never felt better and got loads of energy.....and i exercise daily im doing 30 day shred.

0EmmeNicole0

The reason I"m overweight is because I did not listen to my body and I ate when I was not hungry. Now, I eat when I'm hungry. A couple of days the site told me I was going into starvation mode, but my body did not send such signals. I think the lesson is to learn "your" body and listen to the clues. I trust that my body will let me know when I'm begining to starve.

This!! I believe that you should eat when you are hungry. Don't force yourself to eat your exercise cals if you aren't hungry, but don't starve yourself trying to lose weight either. Use your body as a guide. Well said!

amyy902

thank god someone with sense. also the people going on about it tend to have a lot of fat storage anyway, so the starvatrion response( that would only come if youre one of those starving children in africa ) is nonsense your body will use up anystores of fat and carbs before it shifts to protein stores so its only extreme cases that this whole 'your eating your muscle' thing happens. im on track for a first class houners degree in this and have got A1s in all assessments relating to this topic, so i think i have rights to say this!!

the fatter you are the quicker you loose weight, chances are *not in all cases but most* those people on low calorie intakes are likely to be fairly small anyway, people dont get fat offf 800 cals a day. they get fat by consuming toooo much!!

r3d13

Bump

stormieweather

There's no myth. What you are burning is revealed easily via what you expel through your lungs.

What???????

Indirect calorimetry measures resting metabolic rate, or the number of calories your body burns at rest. It can also measure how many calories your body burns after eating.

The test involves measuring the amount of oxygen a subject breathes in, and the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) breathed out. From these gas exchange data, the number of calories burned per minute is determined.



http://www.uoguelph.ca/bodycomp/ic.html

0EmmeNicole0

And I can't find it, but whoever put "You know what, real MFP'ers (the ones who eat their exercise calories) " What a joke! ALL of us here are "real" MFPers. What works for some, doesn't work for all.

Thank you! Real MFPers are supposed to be SUPPORTIVE and not JUDGEMENTAL like whoever posted that.

gemiwing

Now, through some work and diligence, I can eat much more and still lose. I have more energy than I have had in decades, am getting stronger all the time, and eating more and more and losing inches and pounds and I'm thrilled. I plan on gradually increasing my net calories to see how high I can go and still lose. And I'm looking forward to the day when I reach my goal and can eat without worrying about gaining because I have healed my slow-burning metabolism with one that burns much faster.

My heart goes out to those who are still stuck with the mindset and body that requires VLC eating to lose weight. I was one of those for most of my life. I believe I'm proof-positive that you can raise your metabolism. And, if it's possible, why wouldn't you want to?

I didn't expect to read this thread and find anything but people advocating denying themselves food, how they are different and how existing on 1000cals a day is fun. Very much enjoyed your post and your story- I'm keeping it in my file. My metabolism is repairing right now and you're right- it feels amazing to be able to be free of the yoke of VLC/starvation/denial of nutrients. Freedom is amazing and reading your story I know it's only going to get better from here and that's electric and exciting! :flowerforyou:

ATT949

Okay.....so please explain to me why it is, after my initial 30 pound drop w/the Lap-band, why for 2 years I couldn't lose weight at 500-700 cals a day without exercise or 200 Net cals with exercise??? And by some miracle now, I consume 1300 Net cals with exercise, and the weight is just melting off?

Everyone's body reacts differently....but for me, I know my metabolism took a serious dive with so few daily calories. I could feel it. Before I was sluggish, hardly ever hungry, constantly tired. And now? I have tons of energy and get hungry when it's time to eat -- which is about every 2 1/2 - 3 hours.

Yes, anecdotal evidence is very persuasive to some folks but, in the world of science, of zero value. Promise.

If you can't replicate it in a lab, it means nothing.

Case in point, http://www.randi.org/jr/

For years and years, he's had a $1,000,000 offer to anyone who can recreate a paranormal or psychic power. The applicant works with the Foundation to set up the test conditions and then they execute it. IIRC, most people don't get through the initial trial and, even though folks have agreed to the test conditions, no one has claimed the prize.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." Yup, it's that simple.

OTOH, I do understand the power of the placebo. Ever hear of a thing called "acupuncture"? Acupuncture has never been able to show anything more than a placebo effect in a clinical trial yet there is no question that people find value in it. That's the placebo effect and there's no question that it has an impact on people. Is it scientifically valid? No. Do people "get relief". No question.

Again, "The plural of anecdote is not data."

You're right, everyone's body does react differently. I can't answer your anecdotal evidence; all I can do is cite scientific studies.

But here's the thiing, we have compiled, through time, on this site, a LOT of anecdotal evidence that suggests that when a person has been staying consistently LOW on their calories for weeks, and hits a loss plateau, often, increasing the calories will prompt a new start to the losses, and will break up the plateau.

I agree with your assessment that we toss around the words too casually ("starvation mode" sounds so chicken little)
and we do see a slavish adherance to the magical 1200 number.

BUT that doesn't cancel out the observations of so many members that show that prolonged undereating is detrimental to steady weight loss, and often a higher intake will "fix" this problem.

Agefyter

Whew! I felt like an idiot roaming my kitchen in the evening trying to find something to eat to get to that magical 1200. Think I'll back off of that a bit and see what happens, I'm pretty sure I won't starve myself.

Thanks OP!