What the heck really is starvation mode???

dancer4275

okay...I'm a little curious. I know everyone hates the "STARVATION MODE" threads...but I've been on here for a while...and was wondering, do you really consider anything under 1200 cals starvation? is this proven? why 1200? I've always thought it would be something like 800ish? People can eat around 1000-1100 cals and be healthy, right? just want to get this straight.

emmab0902

The nutrition world's version of making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no magic number. Some people need to eat under 1200 for reasons like stature, medication. Metabolism can slow on very low intake but it does not slow to the point of overriding thermodynamics. The main concern is loss of active tissue mass and undesirable body composition. That's my understanding anyway.

dancer4275

Thanks!

mjmcdon

Once in awhile when I log food in my diary and I'm done for the day, it'll tell me I'm in starvation mode, even though I only have roughly 200 calories left or so. I think its cuz they recommend the average person to eat 1200 calories a day minimum, but each person is different. So if your full, or your done for the day, but still have some calories left, dont worry about it. If you have 500 calories left or so, thats a little different haha. But, I still do it my way. And you may have your own way. As long as its working for you dont worry about it!

ProjectSara

It's an abstract phenomena that occurs to almost nobody in modern countries.

Chainsaw_Flowerchild

The nutrition world's version of making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no magic number. Some people need to eat under 1200 for reasons like stature, medication. Metabolism can slow on very low intake but it does not slow to the point of overriding thermodynamics. The main concern is loss of active tissue mass and undesirable body composition. That's my understanding anyway.

That was a perfect response, with big sciency words too...

MegannHarris

Yeah, I'm always under 1200 and im losing it so I dont know. I'm always full though and if Im not I have a light snack. I dont think Im starving myself.

bcampbell54

I keep it away by ingesting 200 mg of Unicorn Dust every day.

rubystar07

I think people just use 1200 as a rule of thumb because most people are over 100lbs, but the real calculation would be based on your height, weight, and activity level. The big concern with "starvation mode" is (at least in my opinion) for individuals dealing with disorders like anorexia or bulimia and are literally starving their bodies. People also use "starvation mode" to describe a stalling point in weight loss where the body realizes it is not getting enough calories to survive and natually begins to shut down systems and "hold on to" fat in order to conserve energy.

itontae

It's an abstract phenomena that occurs to almost nobody in modern countries.

genius

♥_Ellybean_♥

it's actually when your body stores all the food you do eat to survive because it does not know when it will get those nutrients again. essentially you would have to eat around 200-300 calories per day for several days in order to actually go into starvation mode. The heavier you are the more fat you have, the longer it will take to actually go into starvation mode.

People are like to pride themselves on 1200 calories a day or else, I personally did the research and don't buy into it. I eat when I'm hungry not because MFP says I have to. I normally eat around 1000-1100 calories a day.


There is no 100% accurate study showing that starvation mode actually occurs at a certain point and what that point is, furthermore, there is not a study that shows it reduces your metabolic rate to a point to halt weight loss either.


Just follow your body, if your hungry eat!

soniaa777

alot of people say it exists but than how do people with lapband and so forth lose weight eating way below 1000. also morbidly obese people get put on diets of 800 or less. one thing is if you eat less than you are suppose to you can lose muscle and it may be a danger to your heart, since your heart is a muscle.

i think you have to be thin already for your body to do this.

woou

This is just my opinion.

Personally, I have trouble believing that 1200 cals isn't starvation mode for some folks. I'm a proponent of at least consuming at your BMR.

There's just a certain amount of calories the body needs daily just to function optimally. Per a scientific study (I don't know the name), they found out that the body goes into starvation mode if there is a net cals of under 1200. I believe this number is just an average. Perhaps some people can function at lower and some at higher cals without going into the dreaded starvation mode.

Then there's Michael Pollan who writes a whole book just to basically say, eat real food, in moderation and mostly plants for a healthy body. Forget about counting calories.

Rewinds

I'm no nutritionist but my partner and I discussed it. Whilst we agree it is a myth at a calorie intake of about 1000 calories will prevent muscle growth and possible damage to muscle tissue including organ tissue over an extremely long period of time.

Starvation mode does exist in a sense but it isn't something that happens in the short term?

UponThisRock

There is no such thing.

The myth is that large calorie deficits will cause your metabolism to slow down to the point where you are not losing weight. While it is true that dieting causes your metabolism to slow, it can't slow down so much that it prevents weight loss. If you starved yourself to death your metabolism will drop by 20% or so.

HOWEVER, there are a multitude of hormones in the body that conspire to discourage weight loss (and it's worse for women). For example, when energy availability in the body is limited, your body responds my making you more hungry, making you do lest spontaneous activity (patting your foot while sitting), and sapping your overall energy.

This is why weight loss stalls. Not because you're in "starvation mode" but because your body has conspired against you to steal your calorie deficit. The thing is, no matter where your calories are, weight loss is going to slow eventually. And when you're on one of these terribly low 1200 calorie diets that are so popular around here, you can't realistically go down much further and stay sane. Most people would do well to start around AT LEAST 1800 cals, lose weight slowly, and then start dropping cals/adding activity as weight loss slows. The only real solution to stalled weight loss at 1200 cals is to eat at maintenance for a few weeks to bring those hormones back to normal, and then start dieting again (and most people aren't going to do that). This is why the "eat more" solution sometimes works in response to so-called "starvation mode."

Nobody will read this long rant. I should start a blog.

_Peacebone_

There is no such thing.

The myth is that large calorie deficits will cause your metabolism to slow down to the point where you are not losing weight. While it is true that dieting causes your metabolism to slow, it can't slow down so much that it prevents weight loss. If you starved yourself to death your metabolism will drop by 20% or so.

HOWEVER, there are a multitude of hormones in the body that conspire to discourage weight loss (and it's worse for women). For example, when energy availability in the body is limited, your body responds my making you more hungry, making you do lest spontaneous activity (patting your foot while sitting), and sapping your overall energy.

This is why weight loss stalls. Not because you're in "starvation mode" but because your body has conspired against you to steal your calorie deficit. The thing is, no matter where your calories are, weight loss is going to slow eventually. And when you're on one of these terribly low 1200 calorie diets that are so popular around here, you can't realistically go down much further and stay sane. Most people would do well to start around AT LEAST 1800 cals, lose weight slowly, and then start dropping cals/adding activity as weight loss slows. The only real solution to stalled weight loss at 1200 cals is to eat at maintenance for a few weeks to bring those hormones back to normal, and then start dieting again (and most people aren't going to do that). This is why the "eat more" solution sometimes works in response to so-called "starvation mode."

Nobody will read this long rant. I should start a blog.

I think that is probably one of the best responses to a "starvation mode" question.

woou

It's an abstract phenomena that occurs to almost nobody in modern countries.

:laugh:

Starvation in first world countries may seem rare, but malnutrition, regardless of how much a person weighs, is pretty widespread.

HoopFire5602

Didn't you post something like this before? I think it was one asking if 500 cals a day was okay to eat, which is obviously what you are doing.

dancer4275

Didn't you post something like this before? I think it was one asking if 500 cals a day was okay to eat.

no, that was about the hcg diet. yeahhhh, after so many negative responses, I decided not to try it. I think I'll stay at around 1000-1200 cals.

HoopFire5602

Didn't you post something like this before? I think it was one asking if 500 cals a day was okay to eat.

no, that was about the hcg diet. yeahhhh, after so many negative responses, I decided not to try it. I think I'll stay at around 1000-1200 cals.

But in your diary entries you have only been eating about 500 cals.

beckie4442

Starvation in first world countries may seem rare, but malnutrition, regardless of how much a person weighs, is pretty widespread.
[/quote]

Thoroughly agree with this, alot of people live on over proccessed rubbish with little or no nutrients in it!!

dancer4275

Didn't you post something like this before? I think it was one asking if 500 cals a day was okay to eat.

no, that was about the hcg diet. yeahhhh, after so many negative responses, I decided not to try it. I think I'll stay at around 1000-1200 cals.

But in your diary entries you have only been eating about 500 cals.

That was just for today...I am at school, work, and rehearsal on Thursday's and I can only bring snacks with me.

HoopFire5602

Didn't you post something like this before? I think it was one asking if 500 cals a day was okay to eat.

no, that was about the hcg diet. yeahhhh, after so many negative responses, I decided not to try it. I think I'll stay at around 1000-1200 cals.

But in your diary entries you have only been eating about 500 cals.

That was just for today...I am at school, work, and rehearsal on Thursday's and I can only bring snacks with me.

Yesterdays was 500 too.....I don't want to attack you. It just seems odd. I'm not saying you need help...that's not for me to decide. Just seeing two post kind of relating to the same thing worries me, and looking at you diary, even back a few months.

emmab0902

Didn't you post something like this before? I think it was one asking if 500 cals a day was okay to eat.

no, that was about the hcg diet. yeahhhh, after so many negative responses, I decided not to try it. I think I'll stay at around 1000-1200 cals.

But in your diary entries you have only been eating about 500 cals.

That was just for today...I am at school, work, and rehearsal on Thursday's and I can only bring snacks with me.

Yesterdays was 500 too.....I don't want to attack you. It just seems odd. I'm not saying you need help...that's not for me to decide. Just seeing two post kind of relating to the same thing worries me, and looking at you diary, even back a few months.

Hmm given that your ultimate goal weight is a BMI of 17 you will probably find out if starvation mode is real or not. You are already at a healthy weight.

summalovaable

I think starvation mode only exists depending on your definition of it. Obviously your body won't defy the laws of physics, however it will begin to adapt. Your body is not psychic, it isn't aware you're trying to lose weight. When you go on a high calorie deficit suddenly your body believes you are in a time of famine, and will thus adjust accordingly to keep you alive during this period of poor nourishment (i.e. you expend less energy for the same tasks as before or you may feel less "energetic", it will begin taking from its fat stores etc ). While your body may not be psychic, it is also not stupid. It becomes "worried" that there might be a prolonged period of famine again, and must act accordingly. You've used up fat stores which are its key source of extra nourishment, thus it must focus on replenishing these fat stores to ensure you survive the next famine. Your body has adjusted to ensure you can survive off smaller amounts of food, so when you begin eating more or "regularly" more food is converted to fat

TLCEsq

There is no such thing.

The myth is that large calorie deficits will cause your metabolism to slow down to the point where you are not losing weight. While it is true that dieting causes your metabolism to slow, it can't slow down so much that it prevents weight loss. If you starved yourself to death your metabolism will drop by 20% or so.

HOWEVER, there are a multitude of hormones in the body that conspire to discourage weight loss (and it's worse for women). For example, when energy availability in the body is limited, your body responds my making you more hungry, making you do lest spontaneous activity (patting your foot while sitting), and sapping your overall energy.

This is why weight loss stalls. Not because you're in "starvation mode" but because your body has conspired against you to steal your calorie deficit. The thing is, no matter where your calories are, weight loss is going to slow eventually. And when you're on one of these terribly low 1200 calorie diets that are so popular around here, you can't realistically go down much further and stay sane. Most people would do well to start around AT LEAST 1800 cals, lose weight slowly, and then start dropping cals/adding activity as weight loss slows. The only real solution to stalled weight loss at 1200 cals is to eat at maintenance for a few weeks to bring those hormones back to normal, and then start dieting again (and most people aren't going to do that). This is why the "eat more" solution sometimes works in response to so-called "starvation mode."

Nobody will read this long rant. I should start a blog.

I think that is probably one of the best responses to a "starvation mode" question.

DITTO!