Starvation Mode is a Myth: The Science

scagneti

The source is hilarious. 6 guys try this for less than 3 days, 24 years ago and you think that this is "proof"? Seriously? If you turned that in at school, the teacher would have written a big FAIL across your page.

And here's the truly funny part (other than the people who clearly didn't even bother reading it and feels it someone verifies their stance). Dropping their calories down for 72 hours DROPPED THEIR RESTING METABOLISM. What does that tell you?? If it drops that quickly (72 hours is nothing), what do you think happens to the people that regularly go weeks eating under 1000 calories and then burn 500 off exercising and don't eat it back? Do you think that their metabolism somehow defies the odds and burns efficiently? Of course it doesn't. How long do you think that people can live on what equates to 500 calories a day? Think they can live forever on that? So, as proved by your awesome source, their metabolism drops after only 72 hours (imagine how slow and feeble it would be after several weeks/months!) and then when they go back to eating a normal meal (or they stop exercising), their bodies are so starved and pathetic they can't maintain their weight. Why do you think that the same people who keep talking about "oh I've always eaten like this" are the same ones losing the same 50 pounds for the 2nd, 3rd and more times?

I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Eat whatever you want. And when you whine about not being able to lose or wonder with amazement how you keep gaining it all back, then remember all of the people who explained very clearly that you're starving your body and that's why it keeps rebelling. Some of us are here for a lifelong committement -- not interested in starving themselves for the short-term. That's so 1980s -- just like your article.

ETA -- Eating 1000 calories a day spread over the entire day is NOT intermitted fasting, which is what the article is about. Very few people here who consume 1000 calories a day do it all in one meal and then not eat again for 23 hours.

neelia

The source is hilarious. 6 guys try this for less than 3 days, 24 years ago and you think that this is "proof"? Seriously? If you turned that in at school, the teacher would have written a big FAIL across your page.

And here's the truly funny part (other than the people who clearly didn't even bother reading it and feels it someone verifies their stance). Dropping their calories down for 72 hours DROPPED THEIR RESTING METABOLISM. What does that tell you?? If it drops that quickly (72 hours is nothing), what do you think happens to the people that regularly go weeks eating under 1000 calories and then burn 500 off exercising and don't eat it back? Do you think that their metabolism somehow defies the odds and burns efficiently? Of course it doesn't. How long do you think that people can live on what equates to 500 calories a day? Think they can live forever on that? So, as proved by your awesome source, their metabolism drops after only 72 hours (imagine how slow and feeble it would be after several weeks/months!) and then when they go back to eating a normal meal (or they stop exercising), their bodies are so starved and pathetic they can't maintain their weight. Why do you think that the same people who keep talking about "oh I've always eaten like this" are the same ones losing the same 50 pounds for the 2nd, 3rd and more times?

I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Eat whatever you want. And when you whine about not being able to lose or wonder with amazement how you keep gaining it all back, then remember all of the people who explained very clearly that you're starving your body and that's why it keeps rebelling. Some of us are here for a lifelong committement -- not interested in starving themselves for the short-term. That's so 1980s -- just like your article.

ETA -- Eating 1000 calories a day spread over the entire day is NOT intermitted fasting, which is what the article is about. Very few people here who consume 1000 calories a day do it all in one meal and then not eat again for 23 hours.

LOL I totally used the line "That's so 80's!" just yesterday!

plc765

Thank you so much for the information. I have been having trouble reaching the magic 1200 when I eat healthy. I feel full & wonder around the kitchen looking for something that will help me reach 1200 without adding a bunch of fat or carbs. This takes a load off! Thank you soooo much!

I feel the exact same way! I rarely hit the 1200 mark while eating healthy and I am full, but still trying to figure out what else to eat to hit the mark! Thanks for the info!

FearAnLoathing

The source is hilarious. 6 guys try this for less than 3 days, 24 years ago and you think that this is "proof"? Seriously? If you turned that in at school, the teacher would have written a big FAIL across your page.

And here's the truly funny part (other than the people who clearly didn't even bother reading it and feels it someone verifies their stance). Dropping their calories down for 60 hours DROPPED THEIR METABOLISM. What does that tell you?? If it drops that quickly (60 hours is nothing), what do you think happens to the people that regularly go weeks eating under 1000 calories and then burn 500 off exercising and don't eat it back? Do you think that their metabolism somehow defies the odds and burns efficiently? Of course it doesn't. How long do you think that people can live on what equates to 500 calories a day? Think they can live forever on that? So, as proved by your awesome source, their metabolism drops after only 60 hours (imagine how slow and feeble it would be after several weeks/months!) and then when they go back to eating a normal meal (or they stop exercising), their bodies are so starved and pathetic they can't maintain their weight. Why do you think that the same people who keep talking about "oh I've always eaten like this" are the same ones losing the same 50 pounds for the 2nd, 3rd and more times?

I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Eat whatever you want. And when you whine about not being able to lose or wonder with amazement how you keep gaining it all back, then remember all of the people who explained very clearly that you're starving your body and that's why it keeps rebelling. Some of us are here for a lifelong committement -- not interested in starving themselves for the short-term. That's so 1980s -- just like your article.

excuse me I am one of the ones that say ive always eaten like this,im not losing the same pounds over and over again,during the four months I took off from exercising and tracking my calories you want to know how much I gained back...come on guess....NONE not 1 pound.Befor exercise Im usally around 1200 to 1300 a day give or take some days now after exercise the net is lower.Im fine still losing at a healthy rate of 1.5 to 2 pounds a week.
you are not an expert on me

muth3rluvx2

The more you learn, the less you know.
The more you know, the less you learn.

Grokette

The source is hilarious. 6 guys try this for less than 3 days, 24 years ago and you think that this is "proof"? Seriously? If you turned that in at school, the teacher would have written a big FAIL across your page.

And here's the truly funny part (other than the people who clearly didn't even bother reading it and feels it someone verifies their stance). Dropping their calories down for 72 hours DROPPED THEIR RESTING METABOLISM. What does that tell you?? If it drops that quickly (72 hours is nothing), what do you think happens to the people that regularly go weeks eating under 1000 calories and then burn 500 off exercising and don't eat it back? Do you think that their metabolism somehow defies the odds and burns efficiently? Of course it doesn't. How long do you think that people can live on what equates to 500 calories a day? Think they can live forever on that? So, as proved by your awesome source, their metabolism drops after only 72 hours (imagine how slow and feeble it would be after several weeks/months!) and then when they go back to eating a normal meal (or they stop exercising), their bodies are so starved and pathetic they can't maintain their weight. Why do you think that the same people who keep talking about "oh I've always eaten like this" are the same ones losing the same 50 pounds for the 2nd, 3rd and more times?

I'm tired of beating this dead horse. Eat whatever you want. And when you whine about not being able to lose or wonder with amazement how you keep gaining it all back, then remember all of the people who explained very clearly that you're starving your body and that's why it keeps rebelling. Some of us are here for a lifelong committement -- not interested in starving themselves for the short-term. That's so 1980s -- just like your article.

ETA -- Eating 1000 calories a day spread over the entire day is NOT intermitted fasting, which is what the article is about. Very few people here who consume 1000 calories a day do it all in one meal and then not eat again for 23 hours.

There is no magical number for any one person to gain or lose weight, that is where "starvation mode" is a bunch of hog wash.

If we all ate nutrient dense foods we all actually need far less food than the so-called experts say we need. I can easily fulfill my bodies daily nutrient needs on 700-800 calories and be full and happy as can be, full of energy and able to lose weight effortlessly.

We all need to remember it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, Quality over Quantity. Quality doesn't need xxx amount of calories.

scagneti

There is no magical number for any one person to gain or lose weight, that is where "starvation mode" is a bunch of hog wash.

If we all ate nutrient dense foods we all actually need far less food than the so-called experts say we need. I can easily fulfill my bodies daily nutrient needs on 700-800 calories and be full and happy as can be, full of energy and able to lose weight effortlessly.

We all need to remember it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, Quality over Quantity. Quality doesn't need xxx amount of calories.

At what point did I say that 1200 was a magic number? Do you know what is a "magic number" though? Your BMR. What makes you think that if your BMR is 1300, you can eat 1000 calories and burn 500 without replacing those calories? That's the people the majority of us voices of reason are trying to reach. But the dead horse we're all beating is starting to smell and it just doesn't seem worth it when someone posts some hack article and thinks he's freaking brilliant.

So by your logic of "quality doesn't need xxx amount of calories", you can not eat a single thing all day but consume a handful of vitamins to give you the nutrients you're missing by not eating. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Edit to add -- did you even bother to read the article when it said that their resting metabolism DROPPED after only three days? What do you think people are warning about anyways?

muth3rluvx2

There is no magical number for any one person to gain or lose weight, that is where "starvation mode" is a bunch of hog wash.

If we all ate nutrient dense foods we all actually need far less food than the so-called experts say we need. I can easily fulfill my bodies daily nutrient needs on 700-800 calories and be full and happy as can be, full of energy and able to lose weight effortlessly.

We all need to remember it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, Quality over Quantity. Quality doesn't need xxx amount of calories.

At what point did I say that 1200 was a magic number? Do you know what is a "magic number" though? Your BMR. What makes you think that if your BMR is 1300, you can eat 1000 calories and burn 500 without replacing those calories? That's the people the majority of us voices of reason are trying to reach. But the dead horse we're all beating is starting to smell and it just doesn't seem worth it when someone posts some hack article and thinks he's freaking brilliant.

So by your logic of "quality doesn't need xxx amount of calories", you can not eat a single thing all day but consume a handful of vitamins to give you the nutrients you're missing by not eating. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Edit to add -- did you even bother to read the article when it said that their resting metabolism DROPPED after only three days? What do you think people are warning about anyways?

PAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

BMR?? Are you KIDDING??? Do you know how many times THAT tool has been debunked as credible???

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Oh, that was a good one. BMR. ROFLMAFAO!!!!

Grokette

There is no magical number for any one person to gain or lose weight, that is where "starvation mode" is a bunch of hog wash.

If we all ate nutrient dense foods we all actually need far less food than the so-called experts say we need. I can easily fulfill my bodies daily nutrient needs on 700-800 calories and be full and happy as can be, full of energy and able to lose weight effortlessly.

We all need to remember it is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, Quality over Quantity. Quality doesn't need xxx amount of calories.

At what point did I say that 1200 was a magic number? Do you know what is a "magic number" though? Your BMR. What makes you think that if your BMR is 1300, you can eat 1000 calories and burn 500 without replacing those calories? That's the people the majority of us voices of reason are trying to reach. But the dead horse we're all beating is starting to smell and it just doesn't seem worth it when someone posts some hack article and thinks he's freaking brilliant.

So by your logic of "quality doesn't need xxx amount of calories", you can not eat a single thing all day but consume a handful of vitamins to give you the nutrients you're missing by not eating. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Edit to add -- did you even bother to read the article when it said that their resting metabolism DROPPED after only three days? What do you think people are warning about anyways?

I wasn't speaking in regards to you personally.........

I am sorry, I don't believe in the BMR or anything that says we NEED a particular number of calories. Some days I barely eat 400 or 500 calories because I practice Intermittent Fasting and other days I eat about 1200-1300, but I always get my necessary nutrients and that is the important part to not starving your body.

I also don't believe in calories in / calories out theory either. It has never been proven or disproven. As long as I eat nutrient dense foods (which is whole foods) my body is satisfied. If I eat any crap food that is void of nutrients I get cravings because my body needs nutrients.

You are twisting my words. If we eat a variety of vegetables and get all of the vitamins and minerals that we need and then have plentiful fat intake and moderate protein - the calories will be low but I will have met all of the vitamin and mineral content that my body needs and with pretty low caloric intake and I am no where near starving myself either. Most days I don't even eat all of the food that I alot myself and I am still good on my vitamins and minerals - without supplements.

I personally believe that starvation mode is an excuse for people to say its ok to eat more and slack off. My doctor and I agree that it is an excuse.

Yes, I read the article.

There is nothing wrong with the metabolism dropping a couple of percentage points. It is actually more beneficial it slows down the agin process. If my metabolism is slower I will gladly welcome it. I won't get old and wrinkled as fast as those wanting faster metabolisms.

dzilobommo

My readings on 'starvation mode' (without having done a systematic literature review I hasten to add, but using common sense and my research methodology training) make me think of a Don Marquis quote:

"An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it"

There must be genuine processes and changes that take place in the human body when you change your eating/exercising habits. For me, this is a basic idea that makes sense.

However, to take this idea, extrapolate it and use it to 'prove' whatever we would like to believe is easily done but not particularly helpful. One person may cry 'starvation mode' as soon as the scales don't budge, never mind that their body has ample fat stores. Another person may say 'I have to eat 1200kcal or else I'm going to do irreversible damage to myself', never mind that they are a small person with a healthy BMI who is not deficient in any nutrient. We are all different - no one-size-fits-all advice exists, whether we like it or not!

How we use ideas about calorific restrictions, metabolism, nutritional deficits etc. (which are related but not interchangeable concepts) is often skewed, because 1) we are very good at seeing patterns, even where there are none that will stand up to rigorous analysis 2) we have an urge generalise from our own anecdotal evidence ('it works for me, therefore it must be the one and only truth') and 3) we are not infallible at measuring and calculating things correctly, or spotting incorrect information given to us (I have seen '300g jacket potato = 70 kcal' in someone's diary, who couldn't understand why they were not losing weight on a '500 kcal' diet!)

So, whilst on some days I'm quite happy to eat my 'exercise calories', I don't believe for a moment that hovering mostly between 800-1200 daily net calories for the past month has done me any harm - I am a small person, I watch my nutrition and feel healthy and fit, and I am losing weight OVERALL, even if not on a day-to-day basis. But this is just me - things will be different for each and every person...

I think starvation mode is a valid idea which probably does affect people who are already thin and/or exercising way too hard for their calorie intake. But I'm not convinced that any of us with 'padding' need to worry about it or use it as justification, as long as we listen to our bodies and understand the difference between calories and nutrients, and the difference between the short term and the long term

Good luck everyone!

stormieweather

When did the BMR get debunked?? I musta missed something.

clohessy

Terrific !! Starvation doesn't exist ask any DOCTOR! Unless yor on a hunger strike!

safetypins

I'm ALWAYS hella under calories.

Always. And I giggle every time it says "In five weeks you'll be _____" BUT eat more because you won't lose weight.

Recockulous.

thankyou4thevenom

I would like to point out that the first article you cited is statistically insignificant. First of all, it was done in 1987, and secondly it was done on 6 MEN. For anyone who does not analyze data or review research articles regularly, this essentially means that the information that they claim in the article is not scientifically reliable as : # 1. does have nearly enough subjects, and #2. there were no women in the study, and finally the article is over 20 years old. ALso of note in the study was that the subjects resting metabolic rate DECREASED from 73.5 to 63.8 after 3 days. So in other words their metabolism decreased after 3 days.

All of this.

Different things work for different people, saying it's a complete myth based on a study done on 6 MEN is frankly an idiot.

You need to find what works for you not grasp at straws in the hopes that starving yourself will make you skinny.

annie422

So yeah. I think starvation mode is real but I think Inigo Montoya best sums up my opinion when it comes to the popular usage of the term with, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Nice quoting Princess Bride.

ceebs9

Recockulous.

Hysterical.

FearAnLoathing

Recockulous.

Hysterical.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

drblythe

I went to my doctor and asked her about starvation mode, because I was concerned about always being under my calories despite eating three meals a day, (and snacks) whist paying close attention to my nutrients levels.

She said that as long as you eat regular healthy meals consistently you're in no danger. Skipping meals causes levels of blood sugars and other such things i cant remember to drop, which can in turn cause your metabolism to slow. However, if you're using your brain to make intelligent food choices, making sure you get your required nutrients, there is no need to force yourself to eat if you're not hungry.

I have always been a small eater who grazed throughout the day, while I was eating the wrong foods I was not eating much of them, I see no point in making myself sick from eaten too much now that I'm eating healthier food.

In short eat healthy food regularly until you are satisfied, calorie goals are a good guideline but are not gospel.

ajwall3

Okay.... all this back and forth about this is driving me nuts and making it difficult for me to understand what I should be doing... there seems to be good data on both sides... I dropped 8 lbs in 2 weeks by eating a calorie restricted diet (roughly 800 to 1000 cals/day) and working out every day for at least 45 minutes (sometimes longer) HOWEVER - the scales have not budged the past 3 weeks despite working out for an hour a day and still eating healthy and restricting my calories while eating every 3 hours... So.... what gives?! Am I in starvation mode? If not why am I not losing despite obviously burning more than I take in?

It totally makes sense that your body lowers the metabolism to adjust to the lowered calorie intake to prevent starvation... if you go for a super long time - your body has no choice but to use whatever it can to live... so while the 1200 number may not be accurate - I think the idea is... otherwise: Why am I not losing weight!!!??? Answers please!

tgh1914

There are certainly people here and elsewhere who use the term "starvation mode" incorrectly and out of context. Using that as an excuse to decry the concept is rather silly though. Just because some people do not fully understand it, or its applications, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most commonly, the actual circumstance (around here) is underfeeding. A consistent, long term lack of nutrition, and a lack of fuel, is real and unfortunately quite pervasive here and in other weight loss communities. Trying to say it's rare or some kind of anomaly is a bit naive, IMO.

What does is exist is the body's natural inclination to adjust to extreme conditions. If you lower your calorie intake to a level that deprives it of the energy (which is what a calorie is) it needs to function at an optimal level, it will not function at an optimal level. Pretty simple. RMR will decrease. The body will begin to break down and utilize a higher ratio of muscle to fat. It's quite well documented. Does it mean you won't lose weight? No. It means the weight you lose will not be mostly fat. It will be mostly muscle. Does it happen right at 1200 cals? No. It happens at different points for different people. Does it take 3 days or 30? No telling - each individual has different variables that will impact the outcome.

MFP has made an effort to assist people in utilizing the site as a tool to aid in healthy, sustainable weight loss. To this end, they discourage people from eating too little or too much. Perhaps the tactic they use is a bit overdramatic, in the 1200 cal rule - but unfortunately, that's what it takes to get a lot of people's attention. Some very small women can eat below 1200 and be healthy. But the bell curve puts them well outside the vast majority. Trying to create a program that fits every exact situation is impossible. But they've done their best to make the site as user-friendly and customizable as possible, while trying to discourage people from using unhealthy means of weight loss. It is perfect? No. But I, for one, appreciate their attempts. If nothing else, it's encouraged a lot of people to actually go out and try to educate themselves. :flowerforyou:

Thank you! Now I don't have to type all that. :happy:

elid

Okay.... all this back and forth about this is driving me nuts and making it difficult for me to understand what I should be doing... there seems to be good data on both sides... I dropped 8 lbs in 2 weeks by eating a calorie restricted diet (roughly 800 to 1000 cals/day) and working out every day for at least 45 minutes (sometimes longer) HOWEVER - the scales have not budged the past 3 weeks despite working out for an hour a day and still eating healthy and restricting my calories while eating every 3 hours... So.... what gives?! Am I in starvation mode? If not why am I not losing despite obviously burning more than I take in?

It totally makes sense that your body lowers the metabolism to adjust to the lowered calorie intake to prevent starvation... if you go for a super long time - your body has no choice but to use whatever it can to live... so while the 1200 number may not be accurate - I think the idea is... otherwise: Why am I not losing weight!!!??? Answers please!

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer that will work for everyone 100% of the time. You'll need to use trial and error to figure out what works for you. I recommend eating 100 more calories every day. If, after 2 weeks, that doesn't work to help break your plateau, try adding another 100 more per day.

edited for spelling :embarassed:

tgh1914

To all those that believe there is no real effect to depriving your body of a certain number of calories (no, not EXACTLY 1200) over a sustained period of time, please read this thread:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/174065-starvation-mode-is-real-and-ugly

It is about a long-time MFPer who USED to believe as you do, but has had to learn the hard way.

FrenchMob

Whoever said that BMR has been debunked needs to get their heads examined. You can get tested to see what exactly what your RMR is, and also a dynamic test is available which will give you how many cals you're burning at a certain effort like walking or whatever. Those 2 tests cost approx $200 (probably varies region to region) and 45 mins to do.

There is no "starvation mode" per se. "Mode" is the wrong word. Basically your metabolism will slow down to adjust to the calories available. Lower calories, lower metabolism.... OVER TIME, not just after a few days. It doesn't happen if you don't eat enough for a day or 2, but over weeks it will.

The original post is a joke as a few have pointed out. Hardly scientific with only 6 subjects, and over 60 hours.

sjdoman

Bump

xXAlana21Xx

i can understand both sides and there are many instances were science can not prove everything 100% everyone is different and there is always exceptions to any rule. know your body do what works for you. what is healthy and works for one person of the same weight may not work for another person of the same weight. It gets more tricky when all of lifes variables come into play.

I dont think any of this information should be taken in to 100% true and just do what works for you.

curleesam

I don't think we will ever know the answer to this question as so many people have different opinions, professionals included! As far as I can tell you need to eat what your body needs and if you find yourself not losing then upping your calorie intake to see if that works for you.

Personally I eat half of my exercise calories each day as I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

curleesam

Okay.... all this back and forth about this is driving me nuts and making it difficult for me to understand what I should be doing... there seems to be good data on both sides... I dropped 8 lbs in 2 weeks by eating a calorie restricted diet (roughly 800 to 1000 cals/day) and working out every day for at least 45 minutes (sometimes longer) HOWEVER - the scales have not budged the past 3 weeks despite working out for an hour a day and still eating healthy and restricting my calories while eating every 3 hours... So.... what gives?! Am I in starvation mode? If not why am I not losing despite obviously burning more than I take in?

It totally makes sense that your body lowers the metabolism to adjust to the lowered calorie intake to prevent starvation... if you go for a super long time - your body has no choice but to use whatever it can to live... so while the 1200 number may not be accurate - I think the idea is... otherwise: Why am I not losing weight!!!??? Answers please!

If I were you I would try to eat more for two weeks and see if it makes a difference?

SoonToBeNewTracey

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.

Starvation mode refers to a prolonged period of time that a body is denied the nutrients necessary for its survival. Just because you fast for a day, doesn't mean your body will enter starvation mode. I try to fast every month, having a 1-day water-only fast. This does not mean that my body enters starvation mode, and I don't think MFP or any personal trainer or nutritionist will disagree.

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

I was just going to say about the same thing. there is no magic number. 1200 calories is a GENERAL GUIDELINE. How could the "bare minimum" be the same for everyone?
I use 1200 as my goal, and try not to eat my exercise calories. I generally go over (what MFP suggests) on protein and fiber, but not carbs and fat. Still I have lost 11 lbs in the last 30 days.
Bottom line is that you use all the information provided to you and do what works for you!

xLissyx

bump

SHBoss1673

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.

Can you give me some sort of study which backs this up?

Starvation mode refers to a prolonged period of time that a body is denied the nutrients necessary for its survival. Just because you fast for a day, doesn't mean your body will enter starvation mode. I try to fast every month, having a 1-day water-only fast. This does not mean that my body enters starvation mode, and I don't think MFP or any personal trainer or nutritionist will disagree.

Of course, I agree with you. The problem lies in the misunderstanding of MFP's prompt, which tells us that we are in danger of going into "starvation mode" if we don't eat 1200 kCal per day. The prompt is poorly worded, and often misunderstood.

Isn't the title of this post also poorly worded and perpetuates a myth in and of itself? Starvation mode is neither a myth, nor does the research you posted confirm or deny it as a myth. People's perception of starvation mode may be wrong, but saying it's a myth in your title is as misleading as you yourself admit it's not in the body.

Besides the fact that the studies that you posted actually confirm starvation mode, not prove it as a myth. 8% may not seem like much for you, but that's plenty. And that's only after 3 days of fasting, it can be worse, and usually is after longer underfeeding periods.

and there have been other, longer term studies which point out that RMR or BMR (depending on which method they tested) went down far further in both underfeeding and total deprivation environments, as much as 25% in some cases after weeks.
case in point:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/3/599.full.pdf+html?sid=e89fb416-23c9-4726-9f6b-2755536995a5

Furthermore, the percentages of nutrient types being used for energy metabolism as well as specific hormones designed to increase fat storage and decrease muscle growth change after the short term period (usually deemed between 24 and 60 hours) to promote a higher volume of fat stored and protein used as energy.
see:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/60/1/29.full.pdf+html?sid=5deb5c19-82fc-46dc-bf19-5dc7842a779a


All I'm pointing out here is, be careful you don't prove your own myth by badly worded topics. And think about who your audience is before you post. We (MFP's users) aren't the ones who can change the 1200 calorie statement you are speaking of, the site admins are, if you bring it up to them, and make a decent case, I'm sure they'll read and consider it. I've talked with Mike on several occasions, and he's a reasonable and respectful guy. I'm sure they'd talk to you about it.
If you have an issue with a statement on the site (in site content), bring it up to the admins on the site, don't post it to the food and nutrition section. there's a specific section in the forums just for this type of issue. You could post in technical support or in Website suggestions, either one would be valid for requesting a site correction.


P.S.

For the record it was the World Health Organization that posted the 1200 calorie minimum for women (you can look up the study, it's really long and boring, but it's on their site if you're truly interested), it was a study done in the 80s, and it was concluded that for women, the average minimum daily calories needed to keep a woman out of starvation (note, not starvation mode, but starvation, which is a different condition) was 1200 calories. Please note this does not mean this is right for every woman, and in fact, it probably is less valid for US women who tend to be larger than the world average (height wise), but it's there in black and white, and a valid statement for what it's worth. People twist that number, and use it for wrong purposes, but that does not invalidate the number or claim itself.