For those who do NOT believe in starvation mode

darlilama

I won't say I completely don't believe in it, but I certainly don't think it's the threat to weight loss that I often see posted. We're all a little different… age, sex, genetics all play a role in how our bodies react, right? So, if you can eat 1200 or fewer calories a day and get all the nutrients your body needs to stay healthy, then I say go for it! And, on the occasional day (rare, I admit) that I don't eat 1200 calories, I don't worry the least bit about it. On the flip side, I don't always try to eat all my exercise calories back and other times I end up over my goal. I've still lost 18 lbs in 11 weeks. I'm good with that.

That said, one thing I do worry about is that if people start saying broadly that starvation mode doesn't exist and you can eat 1000 cals a day if you want, it will encourage eating disorders, particularly in young women. It's about health and fitness, not about numbers, isn't it?

emmab0902

That said, one thing I do worry about is that if people start saying broadly that starvation mode doesn't exist and you can eat 1000 cals a day if you want, it will encourage eating disorders, particularly in young women. It's about health and fitness, not about numbers, isn't it?

I guess from my professional point of view, those who develop eating disorders will do so without any discussion around starvation mode. In the same way that talking about suicide doesn't make a person do it. I am sure there are many people on here flirting with starvation mode, and I hope this thread hasn't reinforced any dysfunctional thinking. But I guess that's the problem with wonky thinking - almost anything can be taken or twisted to support beliefs!

cindywhitney

bump

SallieBeige

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.

Johnny - this is simply not true but does represent the "starvation mode frenzy" sometimes seen on this site.
Whilst I agree it might be a good generalisation for the majority ... we are not all the majority as some of the posting have indicated.

I am one of those exceptions. I am old, have hypothyroidism and a naturally lower metabolism (luck of the draw).

I have discussed my nutritional needs with my doctor who assures me that, if I eat carefully I can get all the nutrients I need in 1000 calories (and I don't need to eat my exercise calories).
I have a book of nutrient tables and compare with my RDAs and have checked. I can do it fine.

Also ... had to have blood tests for something and asked the doctor to check nutrients. All of those are fine too.

emmab0902

Ditto for me. I have eaten under 1200 calories for 2.5 years due to meds, and my bloodwork is always perfect. Which is not to say I wouldnt love to be able to eat 1500+ but it's reassuring to know I can be healthy and well nourished on less calories.

SallieBeige

Emma thank you for posting this thread. I actually do find the strong blanket assertions about 1200 calories quite intimidating. In fact, I often feel like I am being bullied about it.

Yet, I do have medical evidence and support to prove what is good for ME.
I know that I am not everyone else .... just as everyone else is not me!

duffydog1

Here's the link some people have asked for to a summary of the Minesota Starvation experiment.
http://www.joyproject.org/overcoming/starvation.html

HonkyTonks

When people talk about 'less than 1200 calories' do they mean total calories in or 'net calories' - I often go under 1200 for net calories consumed but actually eat more than 1200 calories a day (I just dont' eat my exercise calories)

jojonesnz

I don't believe in starvation mode, but I do believe there is an optimum level of calorie intake for *sustainable* weight loss.

I also know, for me, that if I don't eat enough calories for a week, I don't lose anything, but if I add maybe an extra 100-200 calories on a couple of the days, I will lose 1 or 2 lb that week.

I'm using MFP as a guide to how much I should have, but sometimes I will have more calories and sometimes less. My weight is slowly going down and hasn't once gone up, so I must be doing something right *for me*.

i have found the same thing, when i eat too few calories i dont lose but with increased intake i lose quickly? weird!

i always thought that startvation mode was when your body was holding onto the calories as it "freaks" out at the sudden change in calorie intake due to it running on x amount and suddenly being restricted. ive never really thought much more into it so this post has been really informative thankyou for sharing:)

emmab0902

Thanks for the link. Indeed a lot of the research I have read around this study (being a psychologist) was focused on the development of ED type thinking and behaviour subsequent to such a high level of caloric restriction.

To reiterate, this thread is not promoting such unhealthy behaviours, it is merely to point out that the term starvation mode is frequently misused.

thankyou4thevenom

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.

Actually this thread is saying the opposite. It is saying that it does exist but not in the form that we see most used often on the forums here. Also as another poster has pointed out Lyle does say that 'Starvation mode' exists but again not in the form that it is used most often on the forums here.

This is certainly an interesting thread and I think I'll keep coming back to it.

MrsSpinks

The less I eat, the more weight I loose, the more exercise I do and less I eat back those calories the more weight I loose - 'Starvation Mode' only occurs once you have less than a certain percentage of body fat - if you are overweight, you cannot go into 'starvation mode'.

gazz777

I think it exists - i suspect I've experienced it when on ww. but it's used too easily as an explanation for everything on here and i don't think that helps anyone.

Eating vlc for a long period certainly messes with metabolism. but it won't happen in a week or two. and i think true sm rarely produces gains, but does produce very slow losses and plateaus, as well as muscle wastage.

Totally off topic ... Meerkat - happy birthday for last week and congrats on hitting your goal.

Cheering you on ! Every one of you !

MaudeBeige

What convinced you it doesn't exist the way it is spoken about on these boards??

Starvation mode, I believe, is when the body goes into a form of 'shock'. As in what is happening in the Horn of Africa - and those poor people are having far less than 1200 calories a day.

severedpsyche

Starvation mode does not exist in the way that many people refer to it. So many people will announce that if you go below a certain number of calories your body will go into starvation mode, will hold onto all of your fat, and you will not lose weight. This is not accurate at all.
Starvation mode exists in a sense, but it is actually called ketosis.
First of all, our bodies are not stupid. Your body does not eat away at your muscle first when you are starving, it eats away at fat and any other foreign tissue in you body first. It will only target large quantities of muscle mass when fat stores have been depleted.
Ketosis occurs during prolonged fasts or during true starvation, when glycogen stores are depleted. It doesn't occur when you are eating a low amount of calories. The majority of the body is able to use fatty acids as an alternative source of fuel, but they can't cross the blood brain barrier. Your liver then produces ketones, which are able to cross the blood brain barrier, and are used for lipid synthesis in the brain. After a couple days of this process, your brain starts burning the ketones and using them as a direct source of energy from the fat cells that your body is now depending on. Your body then is reserving glucose for absolute needs so that it avoids tapping into the protein stores in muscle.
That is what real starvation mode is.
People who claim that your body will eat your muscle and will hold onto fat are misinformed. You lose a minimal amount of muscle in the first two days and then your body converts to full ketosis in order to preserve it and to keep you alive. Your body is not stupid.
People also claim that if you don't consume enough calories your body will hold onto fat and you won't lose any weight. This is absurd. If this were true then anorexics would not become emaciated and near death and there would be no true starving children in this world. Those people still have muscle mass or they would not be walking around. Only when all fat stores have been depleted does your body has no choice but to tap into the protein that is stored within muslces for energy. This is why emaciated people often drop dead due to heart attacks - because their body has eaten all of their fat and the body actually attacks the heart, which is a muscle, for protein.

skinniewannabe

I do think it exists, just not the way it is dicsussed here sometimes. However, I think that if you eat too few, or too many calories it will screw up your matobolism, making weight loss harder.

LorinaLynn

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

If I want anyone to join me, it's because I feel frickin' AMAZING, and want other people to feel this amazing! Someone else eating like I eat isn't going to make me feel any better, because I feel great. It might make THEM feel better.

I've tried losing weight before, and it felt like punishment. This is the only time I've lost weight successfully, reaching and surpassing goals, and as a bonus, I felt fantastic the entire time.

I realize not everyone loves food the way I do or wants to eat the way I do. I'm not saying everyone should do what I do.

I'm just trying to reach people who feel like I used to feel, that the only way to lose weight is to eat less and less and less and are frustrated and feel deprived. I want them to see there's another way, that it doesn't take radical changes in the way you eat to have great results.

If someone is happy with what they're eating and happy with their progress, continue doing what you're doing because it's working for you.

BUT... if someone is unhappy, hungry and bummed out, don't be afraid to try eating more. It might be the key to success for you like it was for me. That's all.

servilia

I don't believe starvation mode exists in the sense that it's often used on the boards.

What I find interesting is this - my calorie goal is set at 1200 for the day. Now, when I don't exercise (so my goal stays at 1200), if I eat below that by even 100, MFP yells at me that I'll go into starvation mode. BUT, if I exercise and burn 400 cals, so now my goal is raised 1600, if I eat only 1300, MFP no longer yells at me even though I'm 300 cals away from 1600 which would be a net of 1200. Does it only care about the calories you've eaten but not the NET cals?

SallieBeige

Lorina, that is a lovely reminder for those that need it - but I doubt if many here think your way at all.

For most of us here we have been trying to be heard with difficulty. Most of us don't feel hungry!!!

For myself if I feel like it, I can eat PLENTY - I don't make this choice every day, but if I do, I just make the food choices that suit me.
I can actually get bored of the amount of chewing and eating that I do some days and I also feel very full when I want to.

This thread is ABSOLUTELY NOT about people who feel starved or deprived in any way.

avsingleton

sassy, i couldn't agree more...
.

emmab0902

I don't believe starvation mode exists in the sense that it's often used on the boards.

What I find interesting is this - my calorie goal is set at 1200 for the day. Now, when I don't exercise (so my goal stays at 1200), if I eat below that by even 100, MFP yells at me that I'll go into starvation mode. BUT, if I exercise and burn 400 cals, so now my goal is raised 1600, if I eat only 1300, MFP no longer yells at me even though I'm 300 cals away from 1600 which would be a net of 1200. Does it only care about the calories you've eaten but not the NET cals?

I find that strange too. The other thing I find amusing is so many people who eat at above the magic mark very very frequently net below that number, yet it seems to be only those whose target is less than 1200 who get flamed if they don't hit their goal.

servilia

I don't believe starvation mode exists in the sense that it's often used on the boards.

What I find interesting is this - my calorie goal is set at 1200 for the day. Now, when I don't exercise (so my goal stays at 1200), if I eat below that by even 100, MFP yells at me that I'll go into starvation mode. BUT, if I exercise and burn 400 cals, so now my goal is raised 1600, if I eat only 1300, MFP no longer yells at me even though I'm 300 cals away from 1600 which would be a net of 1200. Does it only care about the calories you've eaten but not the NET cals?

I find that strange too. The other thing I find amusing is so many people who eat at above the magic mark very very frequently net below that number, yet it seems to be only those whose target is less than 1200 who get flamed if they don't hit their goal.

Yeah I know. There are women (not familiar with men's requirements) who eat 1800 or so, but then burn off a thousand so they're really netting 800.. and then we get yelled at for eating 1150. Go figure

barkin43

Ditto! Why bother exercising! You could just eat the lower calories and relax! Of course, you would not gain the flexibility and energy that exercise affords, and I believe weight would come off faster with both exercise and cutting back on calories.

servilia

Ditto! Why bother exercising! You could just eat the lower calories and relax! Of course, you would not gain the flexibility and energy that exercise affords, and I believe weight would come off faster with both exercise and cutting back on calories.

Yeah I love the exercise I'm looking to get toned and fit too, and exercise has so many long term benefits.

Silverkittycat

As in the way it is sometimes pushed as something that occurs at high levels of body fat, or misquotes or misinterprets the Minessota starvation study.....

What convinced you it doesn't exist the way it is spoken about on these boards??

NB - this is not a thread to debate SM, it is to hear from those who have their doubts about it.

Well, I believe in adaptive thermogenesis or metabolic adaptation, but I think it goes hand in hand with malnutrition, genetics, health, and body composition. Of course the overweight or obese can just as easily be malnourished as those that are normal or under what is considered "ideal" weight. The way your body utilizes/partitions calories can be affected if you're lacking certain macros and micros - if you are permanently eating a low calorie diet I'd hope your nutrition is 100%, or as close as you can possibly get it.

*editing to add that I'm referring to the original poster with the intent/goal of health. I know there are plenty of members eating low calorie for weight loss that are not focused on the nutritional content and that do not need to eat this way permanently.

KavemanKarg

Dont know if it exists or not as described on the forums, anything I have seen it was tested on people WITHOUT excess body fat so I can see a body straining to preserve under that but not if it has excess weight. Its a theory.

But I also do not think I have seen any member on MFP starving, and I think it gets blamed entirely to much for a stall in weightloss which is quite natural in the long term. We all stall if we are losing weight over the long term, no matter what diet you are on. You cannot go 6 months without the odd stall. Often it is accompanied later by a rapid drop.

Its sort of like overtraining on the fitness communities, it gets blamed all the time, when really the guy just needs a tweek or a back off week.

emmab0902

From wikipedia

"The basic cause of starvation is an imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure"

So we are all in it aaargghh!

lol

Silverkittycat

lol......yeah, you can look to science for guidance, but it's still more art than science. Make your diet fit "you".

LisaMDJ

I'm just trying to reach people who feel like I used to feel, that the only way to lose weight is to eat less and less and less and are frustrated and feel deprived. I want them to see there's another way, that it doesn't take radical changes in the way you eat to have great results.

If someone is happy with what they're eating and happy with their progress, continue doing what you're doing because it's working for you.

BUT... if someone is unhappy, hungry and bummed out, don't be afraid to try eating more. It might be the key to success for you like it was for me. That's all.

Amen, sister! A few years ago I lost 110 pounds and I never dropped below 1500 calories (of course, I was running a lot because I got addicted to it!) I gained 80 back with my pregnancy and now I'm trying to get back in shape. I decided that this time I'm not going to deprive myself at all. I've flirted with anorexia in my past, dropping my calories below 800 and getting freaky about how much I ate, and I refuse to even come close to that madness again. (I'm not saying the people eating below 1200 cals here are anorexic!! We're all different).

Whether it has anything to do with this thread or not, I'm just glad this message is out there. If you want to eat 1100 cals a day, go for it. But if you want to lose weight by eating what you want (within reason) and eating MORE than you thought you could while losing weight, then it's possible for you. I have to do what will work longterm, not what will just get the weight off. And I won't stick to 1100 (or even 1200) calories for long. To enjoy my life, I need good food, sometimes a little junky food included, and I need to run, run, run. So my biggest reason for cutting my calories at all is just so I can be healthy enough to run more. If you're cool with eating a LOT less food, then that's great for you. I've only been on MFP about a week, and I've already seen a lot of people with very low calories. I just hope it doesn't encourage people to drop their calories below the amount they can sustain for a long time. That's my problem with it -- not that it will put you in "starvation mode," whether that exists or not, but that it will put you on a plan that you can't sustain and you'll go kooky after a while and eat everything in sight.

summertime_girl

I think the only way to enter starvation mode is to have no fat reserve left for your body to burn. Until then, no matter the number of calories consumed, the body had stores to fuel from, and therefore, no starvation can occur.