For those who do NOT believe in starvation mode

neanderthin

This is more likely the cause of a plateau and the science backs this up as opposed to someone having a TDEE of 1200. If someones maintenance was actually 1200 calories, you would be in the science literature with your picture. I don't think you could find long term coma victims with those levels.

I think you need to investigate the life of Jack Lallane

Or the effects of long term caloric restriction being used as a method to age slower, and it is considered one of the most important things you can do by the live longer obsessed crowd. Or the aesthetic budhists in India which practice denial of food as a way of life yet are still able to do daily yoga sessions (Hardly coma patients).

Here is a quote

He ate two meals a day and avoided snacks. His breakfast, after working out for two hours, consisted of hard-boiled egg whites, a cup of broth, oatmeal with soy milk and seasonal fruit. For dinner he and his wife typically ate raw vegetables and egg whites along with fish. He did not drink coffee.

Here is what he accomplished on that sparse diet

1954 (age 40): swam the entire length (8,981 ft/1.7 mi) of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, under water, with 140 pounds (64 kg; 10 st) of air tanks and other equipment strapped to his body; a world record.
1955 (age 41): swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco while handcuffed. When interviewed afterwards he was quoted as saying that the worst thing about the ordeal was being handcuffed, which significantly reduced his chance to do a jumping jack.
1956 (age 42): set what was claimed as a world record of 1,033 push-ups in 23 minutes on You Asked For It,[31] a television program hosted by Art Baker.
1957 (age 43): swam the Golden Gate channel while towing a 2,500-pound (1,100 kg; 180 st) cabin cruiser. The swift ocean currents turned this one-mile (1.6 km) swim into a swimming distance of 6.5 miles (10.5 km).
1958 (age 44): maneuvered a paddleboard nonstop from Farallon Islands to the San Francisco shore. The 30-mile (48 km) trip took 9.5 hours.
1959 (age 45): did 1,000 jumping jacks and 1,000 chin-ups in 1 hour, 22 minutes, to promote The Jack LaLanne Show going nationwide. LaLanne said this was the most difficult of his stunts, but only because the skin on his hands started ripping off during the chin-ups. He felt he couldn't stop because it would be seen as a public failure.
1974 (age 60): For the second time, he swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf. Again, he was handcuffed, but this time he was also shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat. At least that's according to his website. However, according to an account of this event published the day after it occurred in the Los Angeles Times, written by Philip Hager, a Times staff writer, LaLanne was neither handcuffed nor shackled if each of those terms has the unconventional meaning of "tightly binding the wrists or ankles together with a pair of metal fasteners" although that's not how handcuffs or shackles work. Hager says that LaLanne "had his hands and feet bound with cords that allowed minimal freedom". But "minimal" clearly did not mean "no" freedom, since elsewhere in the article Hager describes LaLanne's method of propulsion through the water as "half-breast-stroke, half-dog paddle" which is how you swim with your hands tied.
1975 (age 61): Repeating his performance of 21 years earlier, he again swam the entire length of the Golden Gate Bridge, underwater and handcuffed, but this time he was shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat.
1976 (age 62): To commemorate the "Spirit of '76", United States Bicentennial, he swam one mile (1.6 km) in Long Beach Harbor. He was handcuffed and shackled, and he towed 13 boats (representing the 13 original colonies) containing 76 people.[32]
1979 (age 65): towed 65 boats in Lake Ashinoko, near Tokyo, Japan. He was handcuffed and shackled, and the boats were filled with 6,500 pounds (2,900 kg; 460 st) of Louisiana Pacific wood pulp.[33]
1980 (age 66): towed 10 boats in North Miami, Florida. The boats carried 77 people, and he towed them for over one mile (1.6 km) in less than one hour.
1984 (age 70): handcuffed, shackled, and fighting strong winds and currents, towed 70 rowboats, one with several guests, from the Queen’s Way Bridge in the Long Beach Harbor to the Queen Mary, 1 mile.

This guy's net calories were WAY under 1200 a day. Jack was a beast in his day.

Here he is in his prime, preaching about the evils of sugar.

http://youtu.be/LJVEPB_l8FU

God love Jack Lalanne, RIP

Jack was the man, much respect.

If he ate under 1200 calories a day and maintained his weight throughout his life, how many calories daily would you access was used for the purpose of his extensive exercise regime? Lets start there and forget about BMR for a second.

LorinaLynn

All I know is I lost a lot more weight and felt better doing it eating around 1600-1800 a day (and now I average 1800-2000+) than I did years ago when I only ate 800 a day. Was it starvation mode? I don't know and I don't care. But given the choice between feeling great and feeling hungry, I'm always going to choose feeling great.

I do strongly believe that too many people think that depriving yourself and eating very little is a virtue... they believe it shows how strong-willed they are.

IronSmasher

Hiya!

What's this thread about then?

CoraGregoryCPA

I increased my calories to 1500 and complete 4000 calories a week burn. I think the increase in calories has helped in the weight loss, but I'm also happy to eat a little more. I'm excited about the better choices I make and I'm not deprived feeling.. like I was with 1200 calories.

I think this has to do with attitude, rather than starvation mode. I'm happier at 1500 calories, eat ice cream everyday and don't feel like I'm missing out on something.

maidentl

I do strongly believe that too many people think that depriving yourself and eating very little is a virtue... they believe it shows how strong-willed they are.

Agreed.

Grokette

Ketosis is not a starvation diet.

This occurs when ketone molecules are circulating in the blood in a higher amount than on the previous high-carbohydrate diet. Ketosis is a normal physiological state caused by very normal and healthy body functions contrary to the myths, distortions, and lies published by vegetarians and other high-carbohydrate diet supporters. Ketosis allows the body to function efficiently and live off of stored body fat when necessary. Ketones are not a poison which is how most medical and nutritional experts refer to them.

Ketones make the body run more efficiently and provide a backup fuel source for the brain. The three substances known as ketone bodies are acetoacetic acid, beta-hydroxybutyric acid, and acetone. Some unknowledgeable people have an absolute fit when told that ketosis produces acetones in the blood, since acetone is a common household solvent. Acetone is commonly used as a fingernail polish remover. The body produces ketones as the preferred fuel for the heart, outer part of the kidneys, and most areas of the brain.

There is no question that a starvation state does exist. This occurs when glycogogen stores are depleted, and there are not enough carbohydrates in the diet to provide for the maintenance of blood glucose. Insulin levels drop, glucagon levels rise, and the body generated blood glucose from protein that is either coming in through the diet (i.e. atkins) or that is being liberated from muscle stores. The energy to drive this creating of blood glucose from protein (gluconeogenesis) is derived from free fatty acids that are either coming in through the diet or being liberated from fat stores. This is a "starvation state," and ketones are produced from free fatty acids. After about 48-72 hours, organs that can metabolize ketones for energy begin to do this in order to save glucose for organs that can only metabolize glucose (like the brain; ketones do not cross the blood brain barrier). At this point, someone who is starving would presumably be burning a bare number of calories in order to keep the person alive, as to maximize the longevity of stored fat and muscle. I do not think this starvation state is what people are talking about when they talk about starvation mode. But I would also argue that a person who is starving, or has a gross caloric deficit will indeed lose weight - fat and muscle. And I do not mean to say that people on atkins are starving themselves.

I think the point that most people are making when they talk about "starvation mode," is that our goal ought to be a small daily caloric deficit. We want enough calories coming in so that we can get those physiologic boosts of insulin, carbohydrates, and protein that allow for maintenance of lean muscle mass while running a small caloric deficit that allows us to liberate and burn free fatty acids during periods of fasting (i.e. during sleep), or during periods of exercise when we deplete our glycogen stores. If we eat almost enough food each day, but not quite enough we can walk this tightrope of maintaining and/or building muscle while still burning fat. As we all know, the more muscle we have, the higher our basal metabolic rate, the more calories we burn at rest, and the easier it ought to be to get in shape.

It is also important thing to remember that exercise stokes the metabolism even if we are running a caloric deficit. There are two mechanisms that drive glucose into muscle - the first is insulin - which you'll get when you eat a carbohydrate load. The other is exercise - when muscle is active, it soaks up blood sugar. So even if you are running a big time caloric deficit, muscles are going to soak up glucose when you exercise - which depletes glycogen stores --> glucagon release --> free fatty acids liberated --> etc, etc.

So I am not so sure about "starvation mode," in the sense that people use it on these boards. I think that someone who is starving will certainly lose weight; but I bet it will come right back after the fast. Sustainable weight loss (changing body composition), I believe, will more likely come from running small caloric deficits over a long period of time accompanied with exercise.

If you read this, you have the patience of a saint.

Grokette

Thanks for this!!

This is more likely the cause of a plateau and the science backs this up as opposed to someone having a TDEE of 1200. If someones maintenance was actually 1200 calories, you would be in the science literature with your picture. I don't think you could find long term coma victims with those levels.

I think you need to investigate the life of Jack Lallane

Or the effects of long term caloric restriction being used as a method to age slower, and it is considered one of the most important things you can do by the live longer obsessed crowd. Or the aesthetic budhists in India which practice denial of food as a way of life yet are still able to do daily yoga sessions (Hardly coma patients).

Here is a quote

He ate two meals a day and avoided snacks. His breakfast, after working out for two hours, consisted of hard-boiled egg whites, a cup of broth, oatmeal with soy milk and seasonal fruit. For dinner he and his wife typically ate raw vegetables and egg whites along with fish. He did not drink coffee.

Here is what he accomplished on that sparse diet

1954 (age 40): swam the entire length (8,981 ft/1.7 mi) of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, under water, with 140 pounds (64 kg; 10 st) of air tanks and other equipment strapped to his body; a world record.
1955 (age 41): swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco while handcuffed. When interviewed afterwards he was quoted as saying that the worst thing about the ordeal was being handcuffed, which significantly reduced his chance to do a jumping jack.
1956 (age 42): set what was claimed as a world record of 1,033 push-ups in 23 minutes on You Asked For It,[31] a television program hosted by Art Baker.
1957 (age 43): swam the Golden Gate channel while towing a 2,500-pound (1,100 kg; 180 st) cabin cruiser. The swift ocean currents turned this one-mile (1.6 km) swim into a swimming distance of 6.5 miles (10.5 km).
1958 (age 44): maneuvered a paddleboard nonstop from Farallon Islands to the San Francisco shore. The 30-mile (48 km) trip took 9.5 hours.
1959 (age 45): did 1,000 jumping jacks and 1,000 chin-ups in 1 hour, 22 minutes, to promote The Jack LaLanne Show going nationwide. LaLanne said this was the most difficult of his stunts, but only because the skin on his hands started ripping off during the chin-ups. He felt he couldn't stop because it would be seen as a public failure.
1974 (age 60): For the second time, he swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman's Wharf. Again, he was handcuffed, but this time he was also shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat. At least that's according to his website. However, according to an account of this event published the day after it occurred in the Los Angeles Times, written by Philip Hager, a Times staff writer, LaLanne was neither handcuffed nor shackled if each of those terms has the unconventional meaning of "tightly binding the wrists or ankles together with a pair of metal fasteners" although that's not how handcuffs or shackles work. Hager says that LaLanne "had his hands and feet bound with cords that allowed minimal freedom". But "minimal" clearly did not mean "no" freedom, since elsewhere in the article Hager describes LaLanne's method of propulsion through the water as "half-breast-stroke, half-dog paddle" which is how you swim with your hands tied.
1975 (age 61): Repeating his performance of 21 years earlier, he again swam the entire length of the Golden Gate Bridge, underwater and handcuffed, but this time he was shackled and towed a 1,000-pound (450 kg; 71 st) boat.
1976 (age 62): To commemorate the "Spirit of '76", United States Bicentennial, he swam one mile (1.6 km) in Long Beach Harbor. He was handcuffed and shackled, and he towed 13 boats (representing the 13 original colonies) containing 76 people.[32]
1979 (age 65): towed 65 boats in Lake Ashinoko, near Tokyo, Japan. He was handcuffed and shackled, and the boats were filled with 6,500 pounds (2,900 kg; 460 st) of Louisiana Pacific wood pulp.[33]
1980 (age 66): towed 10 boats in North Miami, Florida. The boats carried 77 people, and he towed them for over one mile (1.6 km) in less than one hour.
1984 (age 70): handcuffed, shackled, and fighting strong winds and currents, towed 70 rowboats, one with several guests, from the Queen’s Way Bridge in the Long Beach Harbor to the Queen Mary, 1 mile.

This guy's net calories were WAY under 1200 a day. Jack was a beast in his day.

Here he is in his prime, preaching about the evils of sugar.

http://youtu.be/LJVEPB_l8FU

God love Jack Lalanne, RIP

Grokette

I believe that starvation mode exists, but it is way taken out of context on these forums.............I roll my eyes when I see people telling other posters that they are probably in starvation mode.

If you have excess fat to burn on your body, starvation mode will not kick in for a long time. Anorexics are a perfect example of starvation mode. They burn all their fat, which then the body turns and starts feeding on the bones and muscles, this is how organ damage and such occurs.



I also don't believe in counting calories. I believe in listening to your body and eating when hungry. That means some days you eat more and some days less.

QUALITY over QUANTITY anyday when it comes to eating.

Vodkha

posting in here so I can come find this thread later!

2Bgoddess

one one side, I thought it existed.
- i was eating around 1100 cals and exercising, and my weight would not budge. I started eating 1310 cals and exercising, and i lost little by little

on the other side, i am now eating High protein, keeping low sodium, glycemic, sugars. Between 500 and 700 cals and exercising. I am losing fast and feeling great.

jedi9393

I have no doubt now that starvation mode exists. I have been the same weight, 275 for almost a month now. I eat less than 1000 calories everyday. I work out 5-6 days a week. I am about to start working out 3 times a day. I've been told to increase my calories or eat different number of calories each day. I tried more calories and I gained 5 lbs in 2 days! It's taken almost a week to lose thos 5 lbs!!! I eat low carb, low calories. I don't drink caffeine or eat sugar. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. So if you have any suggestions please leave me a personal message.

emmab0902

I eat under 1200 not because I think it's virtuous or about self control, but because my TDEE is only about 1450 max due to meds I am on. Although self control isn't a bad thing to strive for! Regarding the true starvation mode kicking in near 5% body fat, I doubt many of us on here fit that category!

Acg67

I have no doubt now that starvation mode exists. I have been the same weight, 275 for almost a month now. I eat less than 1000 calories everyday. I work out 5-6 days a week. I am about to start working out 3 times a day. I've been told to increase my calories or eat different number of calories each day. I tried more calories and I gained 5 lbs in 2 days! It's taken almost a week to lose thos 5 lbs!!! I eat low carb, low calories. I don't drink caffeine or eat sugar. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. So if you have any suggestions please leave me a personal message.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/what-defines-cardio-in-terms-of-too-much-qa.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/too-much-cardio-followup.html

and you gained 5lbs in water weight, not fat. @275lbs your caloric intake is too low and you are deficient in your protein intake and i'd assume your fat intake as well

Alice230

I kinda have my doubts because look at people with Bulimia and anorexia. They are always so thin. I know it's not right to be that way and I wouldn't consider it,it's not healthy. But,if your body goes into starvation mode why are they so thin?

LorinaLynn

Putting aside the fancy terminology of starvation mode, I believe there is an optimal amount of calories one should consume for a good, healthy, steady weight loss. It's not a simple matter of calories in vs calories out. If you eat too much, you'll gain, sure. But eating less and less and less and less doesn't mean you'll lose more and more and more and more. There's a sweet spot, and it takes trial and error - and not being afraid of food - to find that sweet spot.

For me, personally, 800 wasn't enough. 1200 wasn't enough. Netting around 1450, with total food amounts around 1700-1800 was the right amount for me to lose weight and feel great. And as I got closer to my goal, I increased that amount, and felt even better.

I lost weight on 800. But it was slow. Very slow. And I lost a lot of muscle mass in the process. This time around, losing fat and retaining a lot of my muscle mass, I looked better and was thinner at 140# than I previously was at 130. At 130, I was able to wear clothes I wore at 115 and under.

And I think that's the biggest issue a lot of people have with very low calorie diets... you're losing weight, but where is that weight coming from?

2Bgoddess

Putting aside the fancy terminology of starvation mode, I believe there is an optimal amount of calories one should consume for a good, healthy, steady weight loss. It's not a simple matter of calories in vs calories out. If you eat too much, you'll gain, sure. But eating less and less and less and less doesn't mean you'll lose more and more and more and more. There's a sweet spot, and it takes trial and error - and not being afraid of food - to find that sweet spot.

For me, personally, 800 wasn't enough. 1200 wasn't enough. Netting around 1450, with total food amounts around 1700-1800 was the right amount for me to lose weight and feel great. And as I got closer to my goal, I increased that amount, and felt even better.

I lost weight on 800. But it was slow. Very slow. And I lost a lot of muscle mass in the process. This time around, losing fat and retaining a lot of my muscle mass, I looked better and was thinner at 140# than I previously was at 130. At 130, I was able to wear clothes I wore at 115 and under.

And I think that's the biggest issue a lot of people have with very low calorie diets... you're losing weight, but where is that weight coming from?

Absolutely true. I also think that there are some odd ones out there, who do not need as many calories, and that may be why some of them end up overweight in the first place.
I wish i could link to an external source but I am being blocked...there is a lot of info out there regarding "hyper efficient metabolism" - not hyper, or hypo active thyroid, indicating the speed of a person's metabolism, but rather the extreme ability to absorb every little bit of nutrients from food, causing storage of much more than the average person. one of the other problems this causes is a build up of vitamins in the body, that are normally flushed away.

meerkat70

I kinda have my doubts because look at people with Bulimia and anorexia. They are always so thin. I know it's not right to be that way and I wouldn't consider it,it's not healthy. But,if your body goes into starvation mode why are they so thin?

This is one of those misunderstandings of the notion of starvation mode. It is about damage to the body, muscle wastage, and a slowing down of the metabolism. It doesn't mean you stop losing entirely. It does mean that the way you lose is altered.

neuro316

MFP has, likely for legal reasons, set 1200 calories as a minimum based on the World Health Organization's standards and findings across AVERAGES of people. So, for the majority, 1200 is a good baseline range to be above. However, around any average there are going to be those that are higher and those that are lower. So, for some people, it wouldn't be good to go below 1500, for example, whereas others will be fine at, say, 800 calories as a minimum.

I think a "starvation mode" exists, but not necessarily in the way it is referred to in these forums. It does not mean that you are literally starving, but rather that your body, not knowing the future, will start to shift its gears, so to speak, in preparation for a potential decrease in the amount of energy it's going to get.

I look at it as simply a slowing of the metabolic rate, so your metabolism is not working as efficiently as it can. You may still lose weight, but you could lose even faster if you eat slightly more calories, and thus force your metabolism to rev up a bit. This is what accounts for those people who reach a plateau, but after adding in another 200 calories or so to their daily diet, start losing again. This is also why, as people get closer to a goal weight, losing the last 5-10 pounds is much harder and takes longer than losing the first 5-10 pounds. As you lose weight, your TDEE decreases, even if you don't change the amount of exercise and other activity you're doing. So, let's say that when you first start dieting, your TDEE is 2200 calories. You cut out 1000 calories a day to get a 2 lb/week loss, and therefore eat a net of 1200 calories. But as you lose weight, let's say your TDEE eventually decreases to 1700 calories. If you still are taking 1000 calories off from that, you'd only be eating a net of 700 calories. For MOST people, that's too low to sustain an optimal metabolic rate, and you'd likely find yourself hitting a plateau. So, at that point it is good to decrease your goal from 2 lb a week to 1 lb a week, and eat a 500 cal/day deficit (so, back to 1200 calories total). And then you may reach a point where the deficit should only be 250 cal/day, or a 0.5 lb a week loss.

Now, if your minimum is 1200, that doesn't mean that eating a net of 1199 calories is suddenly going to switch your body to starvation mode, for goodness sake. And even one day of 900 net calories or below is not going to shift your metabolism suddenly. But if you ate at too low a rate for several days or weeks, your body will start panicking that it's not going to be getting enough food, and slow down your metabolism to compensate.

johnnya2

Ok all of you starvation deniers are missing the point of the site. It is not the actual WEIGHT LOSS. It is called my FITNESS pal. If you regularly go below 1200 caloies you can not in any way get enough protein (which repairs muscle) carbs (which supply energy) and good fats (ESPECIALLY for women).
It is IMPOSSIBLE. Every gram of protein proves 4 calories, the same for carbs. fat provides 9. You MUST have all in a good balance to have maximum FITNESS. Yes, a person who weighs 300# will lose weight eating 1000 calories a day, BUT will they have better fitness or health.
If you are only concerned with the number and not the fitness you have completely missed the point of everything.

emmab0902

Ok all of you starvation deniers are missing the point of the site. It is not the actual WEIGHT LOSS. It is called my FITNESS pal. If you regularly go below 1200 caloies you can not in any way get enough protein (which repairs muscle) carbs (which supply energy) and good fats (ESPECIALLY for women).
It is IMPOSSIBLE. Every gram of protein proves 4 calories, the same for carbs. fat provides 9. You MUST have all in a good balance to have maximum FITNESS. Yes, a person who weighs 300# will lose weight eating 1000 calories a day, BUT will they have better fitness or health.
If you are only concerned with the number and not the fitness you have completely missed the point of everything.

Nobody is denying starvation exists. the point of this thread is about the way the term is used on these forums. It is entirely possible to get sufficient protein and fats on 1200 cals a day (or less) and the rest made up from carbs.

www.body-improvements.com/resouces/eat

I for one am mainly concerned with my HEALTH not a number. And just like people of all sizes, one number doesn't work for all. Some of us have to go below the 1200 mark for various reasons, mine being medication. Which is not the focus of this thread.

jedi9393

Ok my workouts routine isn't just cardio. I lift weights too. I don't starve myself. I truly am not hungry due to lapband surgery. I was told to eat over 50 grams of protein a day. I do that I get around 60-70 most days. Look at my food diary. I guess I am the metabolic freak everyone refers too. I have a tough time losing weight and I'm beyond frustrated and feel hopeless. I don't have any medical issues. Not on any medication to slow my weight loss. I use to do strictly low carb and not count anything else and I lost weight but it was still slow. 1lb every 10 days.

I know about the water weight, but almost a week to get rid of it?!? Most people have the water weight gone in a few days. Also during my period I gain about albs of water weight. So if u think about it my period lasts 6 days about every 29 days so for a week I balloon up. Then it takes 2-3 days AFTER my period to get back down to original weight then if I have a cheat day or one day where I eat more then I balloon up again for another week. So that's about 3 weeks of bloat. Wow that's depressing. Where is the weight loss??

IronSmasher

I tried to help, as subtly as I could

emmab0902

I tried to help, as subtly as I could

Some people don't get subtle huh!

AH2013

Why do people think that because I don't eat the number of calories they think I should be eating it means I'm trying to prove how strong-willed I am? I eat the number I am satisfied with, not what what you think I should be satisfied with!!

Maybe the people who eat back all their exercise calories do so because it's a great excuse to continue eating more or whatever they want, and want us all to join in to make them feel better?

Of course I'm talking rubbish, I'm being flippant, but just to prove my point that you cannot pigeon hole people, we are all different and have different requirements!!!! * massive sigh*

emmab0902

Why do people think that because I don't eat the number of calories they think I should be eating it means I'm trying to prove how strong-willed I am? I eat the number I am satisfied with, not what what you think I should be satisfied with!!

Maybe because some people like the one size fits all approach and don't like individual varation. Hell I WISH I could eat 1500+ cals a day, but it just ain't possible due to the meds. I have given up defending myself against the 1200 calorie police. Do what you KNOW is best for you and don't worry about the rest.

sugarbone

'starving' is eating 50% of your BMI, medically speaking, and will slow down your metabolism. however, it does not slow it down nearly as much as people seem to think, and it does not stop weight loss - the law of thermodynamics does not allow you to eat less than you expend and simply stay the same size. I can't remember the number but it reduces your metabolism by something like 15-30% depending on how dramatic the starvation is.

sugarbone

Ok all of you starvation deniers are missing the point of the site. It is not the actual WEIGHT LOSS. It is called my FITNESS pal. If you regularly go below 1200 caloies you can not in any way get enough protein (which repairs muscle) carbs (which supply energy) and good fats (ESPECIALLY for women).
It is IMPOSSIBLE. Every gram of protein proves 4 calories, the same for carbs. fat provides 9. You MUST have all in a good balance to have maximum FITNESS. Yes, a person who weighs 300# will lose weight eating 1000 calories a day, BUT will they have better fitness or health.
If you are only concerned with the number and not the fitness you have completely missed the point of everything.

I eat 1200, sometimes less, and get 100+g of protein a day, more than enough for someone my size, and even more on lifting days. Your argument is flawed because it assumes 1200 fits everyone - if I'm a 110 lb girl then my starvation minimum will be lower than a 150 lb girl. MFP just needs a blanket number because they should not and can not endorse starving.

I understand your argument and I will NEVER condone starvation, but shaking your finger at people who have adjusted their plans to suit their bodies is just plain silly.

missyyclaire

What I don't understand is this....when people are starved for long periods of time, they become skin and bones. To me that's real starvation. They're not in a starvation mode....they're starving. So is there really a "Starvation mode"? When people suffering from anorexia are in a chronic state...they are skin and bones. They are starving themselves. So I ask again, is there really a starvation mode? When the body senses it's not getting enough calories, it appears that it doesn't slow down the weight loss...it just keeps dropping the weight til some food comes back to nourish that body. When actors lose lots of weight for a movie, they eat very little...and they lose a lot of weight. Now, I don't think any of this is healthy....I just don't think I believe in this so called Starvation Mode. You eat a lot, you will gain, you eat a lot less and you will lose.

LilMissFoodie

People seem to really be confusing starvation with starvation mode. You do not have to be thin to be in starvation mode. You do not even necessarily have to be eating less than 1200 cals (1200 cals is actually quite a low goal). It occurs when you have maintained a low calorie goal (the actual nutmber is dependent on person, not the same for everyone) for a long period of time. It doesn't happen in a few weeks and it doesn't correct in a few weeks.

It is true that there are people that say they started eating more and then started losing weight and I believe this but I think it is much more likely a result of not having as many cheat days or meals because you have a more realistic goal that you can actually stick with. If you are truly in starvation mode, then your first few weeks that you increase your calorie intake you will actually gain weight because the whole point is that your metabolic rate has decreased and it doesn't come back up overnight just because you start taking in more calories.

skinimin

I am SO GLAD someone started this thread! Anorexia and it's results basically disprove the starvation mode. I think I read an article based on Lyle's research and at that point I was like, yeah starvation mode is pretty much bull****. I mean MAYBE it DOES happen to SOME people, but it is very rare and won't happen if I eat 1199 calories everyday for a week, or 6 months even.