Starvation mode?

chrissyh

seems to be lots of posts about this and BMR and eating calories today. Here's a question I have - how do you know if your body is in starvation mode? Are there any tell tale signs?

chrissyh

seems to be lots of posts about this and BMR and eating calories today. Here's a question I have - how do you know if your body is in starvation mode? Are there any tell tale signs?

allaboutme

there is no line, but you will probably plateau with weight loss, and will not have much energy. Just two of the signs. There is nothing your body does specifically because it adjusts to not getting enough food by slowing down the metabolism, no major signs. Although if you aren't eating enough you aren't getting enough vitamins and nutrients either, so weak and brittle nails will also be a clue. My nails have been beautiful since I started eating well.

vanessadawn

that is so bizarre, I was just posting the same type of topic simultaneously! :laugh:

chrissyh

Creepy!!! Hopefully we'll get some answers that we understand

lotusfromthemud

According to my doctor, one of the primary symptoms, ironically, is that you lose your appetite.

I was to the point that I was creeped out by my food. One example: I cut into an apple and couldn't eat it because the apple seeds looked like bugs to me. Weird, huh?

Also: you'll be very irritable, low in energy, you may have hair loss and a general weakness. Also, if you exercise, you may notice that even after a day off, you are still sore and don't feel like your muscles recover at all. At least, that was my experience.:flowerforyou:

yellow_pepper

I don't buy that your body can enter "starvation mode" so easily. I think it's more a matter of this scenario happening to a lot of us:

We cut calories but don't lose weight that week, so we get frustrated and decide we must not have been eating enough! So then we eat more, and if we lose weight that week, we think aha! I need to be eating more... But getting frustrated with slow weight loss =/= starvation!

But this weight loss would actually be FASTER if you cut more calories. Granted, you don't want to cut too much. Go below 900 calories a day (I got that figure from an MD) for a sustained period and you'll start to use your internal organs for energy. And most of us would feel like crap below 1200 calories a day, even though medical clinics go below that level over predetermined periods of time.

Just as an example, the highest cholesterol levels are reported among a very thin group of people: anorexics. Why? They're living on their own organs. And they're going to die if they keep it up.

That's the true risk of "starvation mode": starving to death. Most of us on MFP are here because we are on the opposite side of the spectrum - we've been overeating all our lives!

The case for eating more:

There's no point in reducing your calories to a level that you know you won't stick to once you lose the weight. This is about lifestyle! When you're thin, you just can't eat as much and stay thin. If you go back to eating the way you did when you were heavier, you will get heavier again.

So never eat so little that you feel like you're starving... Not because you actually are, but because you'll be more likely to stick to your new lifestyle if you eat a little more and lose weight a little more slowly.

psyknife

The problem with consuming too few calories is then where the body will go for it's energy sources.

Sure, you may lose weight faster (for some), but you must realize that this weight loss may not mearly come from fat but a loss in muscle mass and bone density.
We NEED to eat enough calories so that our bodies don't start compromising themselves by taking energy from places that we don't want energy taken from.
On top of that, when people eat too few calories they start getting malnurished (where complexion and hair loss come into play)... which is not good either, for obvious reasons.

So, unless you are heavily medically supervised (or are on a special diet prescribed to you by a doctor or dietician, NOT a personal trainer [as trainers are not allowed to prescribe diets]) diet, then you should defintely not get too low in calories.

Starving ourselves in hopes of seeing the scale go down quicker is bad news, kids. Think of the other parts of the body you are risking damage to. Slow and steady wins the race... be the tortoise, not the hare.

allaboutme

the body is quite complex and mind over matter is a huge issue when it comes to starving yourself. You can convince your brain you aren't hungry when you are (or I can sometimes). Science has shown us that you can't, or shouldn't go below BMR calories without affecting the way our bodies live day to day, but we continue to do it to make us skinny even though we know we are hurting ourselves. Wild isn't it that our appearance is more important than our health and how we feel. Sometimes we do it to reach the healthy level, but don't do it the healthy way even though we are doing it for our health. We couldn't imagine letting our children do it. Now that I am older I worry that if I don't feed my body now, what will happen when I get even older, arthritus, osteoporosis, diabetes? So that is why I changed. I don't need to live a long time, but the years I have I want to be healthy and as pain free as possible. Just a thought, no particular point.:flowerforyou:

yellow_pepper

Some studies actually show that eating a low-calorie diet may make you live longer.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E3D9113DF934A35753C1A961958260

There are a lot of more recent studies in support of this hypothesis, as well.

But allaboutme is right: It's mind over matter. And when it comes to eating, we're not being supervised by experimental scientists who control our calories for us. We need to do it ourselves. And for humans, being healthy depends a lot on being happy! I know that I wouldn't be happy if I were never allowed to eat more than 1200 calories per day, even if I might be much thinner and even live longer!

So the case for eating more and losing weight more slowly is not a matter of health as it can be measured in the doctor's office. (Regardless of how bad you feel when you're losing weight quickly, you're still getting healthier as far as your vitals are concerned.) It's a matter of health as we FEEL it. And that's more important when it comes to developing a sustainable lifestyle.

If believing in and avoiding "starvation mode" is what keeps us happier while also allowing us to lose weight and reach (and stay in) a healthy BMI range, then that's fine... But science does not support that eating more makes you healthier - unless you'd otherwise be malnourished or ill in some other way.

kerrilucko

Some studies actually show that eating a low-calorie diet may make you live longer.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E3D9113DF934A35753C1A961958260

There are a lot of more recent studies in support of this hypothesis, as well.

But allaboutme is right: It's mind over matter. And when it comes to eating, we're not being supervised by experimental scientists who control our calories for us. We need to do it ourselves. And for humans, being healthy depends a lot on being happy! I know that I wouldn't be happy if I were never allowed to eat more than 1200 calories per day, even if I might be much thinner and even live longer!

So the case for eating more and losing weight more slowly is not a matter of health as it can be measured in the doctor's office. (Regardless of how bad you feel when you're losing weight quickly, you're still getting healthier as far as your vitals are concerned.) It's a matter of health as we FEEL it. And that's more important when it comes to developing a sustainable lifestyle.

If believing in and avoiding "starvation mode" is what keeps us happier while also allowing us to lose weight and reach (and stay in) a healthy BMI range, then that's fine... But science does not support that eating more makes you healthier - unless you'd otherwise be malnourished or ill in some other way.

I'm really confused by what you're saying... You don't believe in starvation mode yet you state sources that discuss the body's need to eat itself when your calorie intake drops to low... Nobody's saying people need to to a lot to lose weight... but 1200-1600 calories a day ISN'T a lot... it's just enough to keep your body running, while supporting weight loss.

Bunnies_Revenge

A lot of people I know don't read anything about what they eat. Its not so much of how much you eat but what you eat as well. You can eat 1200 calories worth of cookies and enter into some type of starvation mode because you're not getting what you body needs, like vitamins and other nurients. However, eating nothing buy celery sticks will also have the same effect.

You have to eat everything in moderation. I'm sure everyone has heard this before. 1200 to 1600 is good goal range for calories if you're eating the right types of food. You shouldn't enter into starvation mode if you eat the right type of food.

allaboutme

yellow pepper, here is my question though, can your body get what it needs nutrionally, eating less than 1200 calories. It has been shown that with 1200 calories you can get your proper nutrition (adjusting calories for size, age, etc), and if you aren't getting the proper nutrition then your body is ultimately suffering for it, whether you call it starvation mode or just malnutrion, almost the same thing maybe. You may lose weight, which is good for you, yes, but you are not getting proper nutrition so bad for you, so maybe we should call it malnutrition instead of starvation mode?

The study didn't state what they considered low calorie for humans, so hard to know what they consider low cal, they didn't appear to be talking about any particular number.

I know that you are saying people have to find what they are happy with at a reasonable calorie level to lose weight, but if they could have done this they would have. With all the hype out there for low calories diets and being thin, it is really easy to want to believe you can lose 20 lbs in two weeks. Somewhere we need balance, what is too high, what is too low. You have to learn about nutrition and calories and exercise, it isn't always easy. I wouldn't think that lowering your blood pressure by consuming 800 calories a day is going to be healthy. What about your other vital organs that depend on that food to survive.

Science I think does support that eating more reasonably as opposed to crash diets is more sustainable and therefore healthier in the long run, because you aren't as likely to put it back on.

I am not a doctor or a scientist, just my two cents that I have learned from my reading and little bit of research.

songbyrdsweet

Here's the bottom line with numbers: They're VERY rough estimates based on averages from about 50 years ago. It's akin to looking up at the sky and saying "There are about a trillion stars out there." There could be more or less, but with this ball-park number you can feel safe that you might be somewhat accurate, maybe.

Almost all of what we "know" about the human body is an estimate...an educated guess. Some people probably can live off 900 calories. Some people probably need 2000. Throwing '1200' out is most likely inaccurate for a large part of the population, but since we don't all have access to a metabolic chamber, it's a place to start. We can say "Okay, pretend your BMR is 1200 calories per day, and pretend you burn about 800 calories thinking, speaking, walking, driving, and whatever else during the span of 24 hours. Let's see what happens when you eat 1500 calories a day."

This isn't a science. It's an art. We have to individualize our programs, listen to our bodies, and stop asking others what worked for them. It probably won't work for anyone else.

yellow_pepper

What I'm saying is that for all of us who are not losing weight as quickly as we want at 1500 calories a day, or 1600 or 2000 calories a day, it's not because we're eating too little and in "starvation mode." This idea that your body needs MORE calories to lose weight when you're pretty well-fed as it is just doesn't make sense. But it is a way to justify eating more, because that's what we want to do.

Not that there's anything wrong with eating more. There are many reasons why it's better to lose weight slowly. It's better for your skin - gives it time to shrink with you. It's hard and unpleasant to lose weight quickly. It makes us antsy at parties and at work! Like a smoker trying to give up cigarettes. It makes us need to think of something else to do when we're bored or want more sweetness in our lives besides eating to make up for some feeling we're missing. THESE are the reasons why we gained weight in the first place - not this "starvation mode"! None of us has been "starving" all this time. Maybe starving for happiness, appreciation, job satisfaction, friends, love... but not for calories.

I'd to weigh 118 lbs like my friend S., and she's told me how she does it. She eats 1500 calories/day. I haven't been doing that! Not since I was about 14 - which was the last time I weighed 118. I weigh 135 lbs and have trouble losing weight. Not because the 1600-2000 cals I've been eating is "starvation mode." It's because I'm in 135-mode and I need to eat less if I want to weigh less. But I find that tough - I like to go out for rich dinners and brunches. I need to give those up or learn to order the salad and stick to it if I want to look more like S., who is incidentally very healthy - runs marathons, etc. So she's not in "starvation mode" either.

You'll find no argument from me that if you're not eating balanced meals (whether at 1200, 1500 or 2000 cals), you might be malnourished. There are overweight and obese people with anemia, scurvy, all kinds of diseases. Overweight women can give birth to babies with birth defects because they don't get enough folic acid . But that doesn't mean they're in "starvation mode." It means that they eat badly - but still eat too much. And that's tragic.

But what I'd like to debunk is that you can increase your weight loss rate by eating more without also exercising more. That's the kicker! Weight loss is lumpy - you could gain 2 one week, lose 4 the next, and so on... but you lose weight faster ON AVERAGE when calorie intake is lower FOR A SUSTAINED PERIOD. So when the scale doesn't budge in spite of your best efforts - the solution is PATIENCE! Not more food.

yellow_pepper

I'm really confused by what you're saying... You don't believe in starvation mode yet you state sources that discuss the body's need to eat itself when your calorie intake drops to low... Nobody's saying people need to to a lot to lose weight... but 1200-1600 calories a day ISN'T a lot... it's just enough to keep your body running, while supporting weight loss.

I'd also just like to congratulate you on all the success you've had... You've really done it right!

1200-1600 is not a lot - it is HARD! I struggle with it every day. But it's the reality of wanting to weigh less than I do. My only argument is that if I could eat just 1200 calories a day, I'd lose weight faster on average than I would at 1600 calories a day. Almost a pound per week faster. Which is the better plan? The one that keeps me sane! And that's the 1600 end of the spectrum.

Here's to your continued success - and hoping that being back online, I'll start to see results, too.

YP

kerrilucko

What I'm saying is that for all of us who are not losing weight as quickly as we want at 1500 calories a day, or 1600 or 2000 calories a day, it's not because we're eating too little and in "starvation mode." This idea that your body needs MORE calories to lose weight when you're pretty well-fed as it is just doesn't make sense. But it is a way to justify eating more, because that's what we want to do.

Not that there's anything wrong with eating more. There are many reasons why it's better to lose weight slowly. It's better for your skin - gives it time to shrink with you. It's hard and unpleasant to lose weight quickly. It makes us antsy at parties and at work! Like a smoker trying to give up cigarettes. It makes need to think of something else to do when we're bored or want more sweetness in our lives besides eating to make up for some feelings we're missing. THESE are the reasons why we gained weight in the first place - not this so-called "starvation mode"! None of us has been "starving" all this time. Maybe starving for happiness, appreciation, job satisfaction, friends, love... but not for calories.

I'd to weigh 118 lbs like my friend S., and she's told me how she does it. She eats 1500 calories/day. I haven't been doing that! Not since I was about 14 - which was the last time I weighed 118. I weigh 135 lbs and have trouble losing weight. Not because the 1600-2000 cals I've been eating is "starvation mode." It's because I'm in 135-mode and I need to eat less if I want to weigh less. But I find that tough - I like to go out for rich dinners and brunches. I need to give those up or learn to order the salad and stick to it if I want to look more like S., who is incidentally very healthy - runs marathons, etc. So she's not in "starvation mode" either.

You'll find no argument from me that if you're not eating balanced meals (whether at 1200, 1500 or 2000 cals), you might be malnourished. There are overweight and obese people with anemia, scurvy, all kinds of diseases. Overweight women can give birth to babies with birth defects because they don't get enough folic acid . But that doesn't mean they're in "starvation mode." It means that they eat badly - but still eat too much. And that's tragic.

But what I'd like to debunk is that you can increase your weight loss rate by eating more without also exercising more. That's the kicker! Weight loss is lumpy - you could gain 2 one week, lose 4 the next, and so on... but you lose weight faster ON AVERAGE when calorie intake is lower FOR A SUSTAINED PERIOD. So when the scale doesn't budge in spite of your best efforts - the solution is PATIENCE! Not more food.

I think the problem is that you're being very generic. You're saying EAT LESS. eat less than what? I don't think anyone has every said that eating less than 1500cals is dangerous or will cause starvation mode. In fact I eat about 1400 cals a day so I know that that is not to low for everyone. What confuses and, and you need to be careful about this because many people will read your post and take it this way, is that you're claiming it is safe to lose weight as quickly as possible when it simply isn't true. When you severely restict calories (I'm talking about consuming fewer than 1200 for a woman or fewer than 1600 for a man) over an extended period of time, you will cause damage, irreparable damage to your body. A close friend of mine had her gallbladder removed this past summer due to extreme dieting wherein she consumed fewer than 1000 calories a day. I have also read of cases where extreme yo yo dieting has caused diabetes in relatively young women who would otherwise be at a very low risk for the disease.

When you scale isn't budging, you're right, the solution is often patience. But if you examine your current habits and find that you are actually consuming very little food, or burning off most of your food through excercise, the answer very well may be that you are eating too little. It is as valuable an answer as the fact that you may be eating too much, or eating the wrong types of foods.

kerrilucko

I'm really confused by what you're saying... You don't believe in starvation mode yet you state sources that discuss the body's need to eat itself when your calorie intake drops to low... Nobody's saying people need to to a lot to lose weight... but 1200-1600 calories a day ISN'T a lot... it's just enough to keep your body running, while supporting weight loss.

I'd also just like to congratulate you on all the success you've had... You've really done it right!

1200-1600 is not a lot - it is HARD! I struggle with it every day. But it's the reality of wanting to weigh less than I do. My only argument is that if I could eat just 1200 calories a day, I'd lose weight faster on average than I would at 1600 calories a day. Almost a pound per week faster. Which is the better plan? The one that keeps me sane! And that's the 1600 end of the spectrum.

Here's to your continued success - and hoping that being back online, I'll start to see results, too.

YP

thanks :flowerforyou: Thing is the 1200 calorie thing works for some people, but it's too low for most. And in all honesty you may not even lose more quickly with it. I used to eat 1200 and recently switched to 1400 and I'm actually losing at about the same rate. weird, I know but like song said above, our bodies are complete mysteries... we can only make guesses about how they really work. Good luck to you

yellow_pepper

I'm not saying that eating less is always better... All I'm saying is that eating more won't make you lose weight faster. That IF you're eating enough, whatever "enough" means for you - you're not going to lose weight faster if you eat more.

Please, please, please don't extrapolate my comments to suggest that I'm advocating REAL starvation.

The "starvation mode" that I'm arguing against is the claim that on say, 1800 calories a day, the reason why I'm not losing weight is "starvation mode." It's not. It's that weighing less means eating less. Not that I should go down to 900. But that 1600 might be worth trying if I want to see results.

I don't think that I'm advocating anything dangerous.

Again, congrats on your success.

yellow_pepper

I'd guess that at 1400 you feel more energetic and are more active... So you burn more than 200 more calories just incidentally. Maybe even just by smiling more. :flowerforyou: Keep up the awesome work, you'll be a beautiful bride.

cmriverside

This isn't a science. It's an art. We have to individualize our programs, listen to our bodies, and stop asking others what worked for them. It probably won't work for anyone else.

Thank you, songbrydsweet. Perfectly said.