Starvation Mode/ Calorie Deficit/ Losing weight

chrissyh

I am me again!

Good Night Dave! :flowerforyou:

Dave198lbs

it sounds like we are on the same path.

I think where I got confused is when I thought you were saying that 1200 was the base and lessen from that. - I am tired!

bottom line is don't go below 1200 after all is said and done.

If you only eat 1300 a day as your goal to lose a pound a week as set in MFP and you burn 600 in a workout your intake for the day is 700 which is below the 1200 so you would eat more than the original 1300 to keep your "base" above the 1200.

OOPS - I forgot I logged in for my husband to log his food!

ya,,bottom line ,,,,eat enough to cover the base for sure

SHBoss1673

so you're burning more than you're eating if you eat 1200 and your BMR is 1500 - deficit daily is 300
300 * 7 = 2100 deficit for the week. yes this is true

Maybe this is a better way to explain it....

eat 1200/day
exercise burn 500

1200 - 500 = 700 which is well below the minimal 1200, and WAY below what your BMR is.

if you need 1200 and eat 1200 then you are even...if you burn 500 with exercise you have a deficit of 500 but if you ate the 1200 to feed your bmr then the deficit is satisfied by fat and you lose weight...if you need 1200 and burn 500 and then eat 1700 you will stay the same weight

I think people are confusing BMR with Maintenance calories. BMR is about 60% of what you need in order to maintain your weight (25% comes from daily activity, and 15% comes from thermogenesis, or heat production and chemical reactions in the body).

And for most healthy adult females, their BMR is somewhere higher then 1200. 1200 is only relevant because in the 1980s the World Health Organization did an exhaustive study and concluded that for women 1200 calories is the minimum amount of calories needed to provide sufficient macro nutrients (fat, carbs, and protein) in order to survive long term without eventually becoming malnourished (that doesn't mean healthy, just malnourished). For men that number was 1800. Mind you, guys, these numbers are an average. It's not recommended for a healthy person without the desire to lose weight to go below your BMR. Obese people can for a while, and really small framed adults can stay slightly below their BMR for a bit because they are so close to that number already.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit. :happy:

douganl

so you're burning more than you're eating if you eat 1200 and your BMR is 1500 - deficit daily is 300
300 * 7 = 2100 deficit for the week. yes this is true

Maybe this is a better way to explain it....

eat 1200/day
exercise burn 500

1200 - 500 = 700 which is well below the minimal 1200, and WAY below what your BMR is.

if you need 1200 and eat 1200 then you are even...if you burn 500 with exercise you have a deficit of 500 but if you ate the 1200 to feed your bmr then the deficit is satisfied by fat and you lose weight...if you need 1200 and burn 500 and then eat 1700 you will stay the same weight

I think people are confusing BMR with Maintenance calories. BMR is about 60% of what you need in order to maintain your weight (25% comes from daily activity, and 15% comes from thermogenesis, or heat production and chemical reactions in the body).

And for most healthy adult females, their BMR is somewhere higher then 1200. 1200 is only relevant because in the 1980s the World Health Organization did an exhaustive study and concluded that for women 1200 calories is the minimum amount of calories needed to provide sufficient macro nutrients (fat, carbs, and protein) in order to survive long term without eventually becoming malnourished (that doesn't mean healthy, just malnourished). For men that number was 1800. Mind you, guys, these numbers are an average. It's not recommended for a healthy person without the desire to lose weight to go below your BMR. Obese people can for a while, and really small framed adults can stay slightly below their BMR for a bit because they are so close to that number already.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit. :happy:

So Banks....Chrissyh is right...right??????

SHBoss1673

It's a matter for some debate, douganl.

Different trainers follow different rules of engagement as to where your cut off should be. And to be honest, none of them have the definitive answer for everyone. Because our bodies are all so highly diversified, what works for one, may not necessarilly work for all.

The one thing trainers, doctors, and research scientists almost universally agree with is that the 1200/1800 rule (women/men), is pretty much a line in the sand. With the exception of people who have so many fat stores that the body doesn't recognize a severe lack of food (obesity) or where the body is so small that they just don't need as many macro nutrients as the rest of us (women who are very short, somewhere in the 5' and lower range with a medium to small body frame), this rule is pretty much a given.

As to how much you should eat to provide a HEALTHY deficit. Well, that depends on many factors.
The determination shouldn't be made until someone knows what their BMI is, what their body fat% is, whether they have a metabolic rate in the normal range, whether they have any medical conditions that may preclude them from a normal weight loss (I.E. hypertension, or diabetes for example), and what their maintenance and BMR calories should be at.

Ultimately, most studies and doctors agree, a slow, stable, gradual weight loss program with a balanced healthy diet and regular exercise that actually causes physical depletion of energy stores (I.E. if you walk all day and then go for a slow walk at night, you're really not helping yourself. You need to actually stress the muscles a little to get real benefit from exercise.) is the best way to change yourself and lower your weight.
Now, you may ask, "What is considered slow and steady?" and I'll answer, most trainers and doctors agree, that for a reasonable healthy person (I.E. someone with a BMI under 30) you can shoot for between 1/4 and 1 lb per week weight loss. What you have to remember is not everyone will achieve results with 1 lb a week, and for those with a BMI already down around 25 or lower, even 1/2 a pound may be too much for their body. When you get to that area of BMI, Body Fat % plays a far larger roll, as that is what the body should be using to make up the difference. if your body fat % is low, then you will have a far harder time losing weight. And yes, it is possible to have a low Body fat % and a BMI above 25 (high muscle to fat ratio would do this, which is why athletes don't get a very accurate BMI score)

it's VERY IMPORTANT to note, that these are all NET NUMBERS. In other words, these numbers mean your deficit AFTER you calculate in how much exercise you do. Take my goals over the last 15 months for example.

I started 15 months ago with a BMI of 31 and a Body fat % of around 21%
I was trying for 2 lbs a week goal (and succeeding) with a NET calorie deficit of 1000 calories

12 months ago I had lost about 22 lbs and was showing slower losses. So I redid my numbers and goals to 1.5 lbs per week NET deficit in calories (750 calorie a day deficit) and continued losing successfully. At that point my BMI was about 28 and my Body fat % was about 18%

8 months ago I downed it again (this time realizing why right away) to about 1 lb per
week (500 cals), I had redone my numbers and realized I was only about 15 lbs from my goal. I now had a BMI of about 26 and a body fat % of 16%.

5 months ago I was at my goal of 180 lbs. My BMI was 24.5 and my Body fat was at about 14%. At that point I maintained (no more calorie deficit) and went on a far more demanding workout schedule to lower my body fat while not losing any more weight. This worked for the most part, while I did lose 2 lbs inadvertantly, it was just because I losing body fat without gaining significant muscle (it's hard to gain much muscle without eating at a caloric surplus)

For the last 3 months I have been vigorously attempting to gain back muscle, increase my anabolic metabolism (the hormones that increase muscle mass and cancel out cortisol production) and have gained 5 lbs of muscle mass back. I know this because my body fat % is now at about 11% and my BMI has raised from 23.5 to 24.

So that's a good example of a healthy weight loss and diet program. Notice how my net calories only went under my BMR when I was obese (my maintenance calories started at 2950, so even when obese I was eating 1950 PLUS what ever calories I burned exercising) my BMR at the time was 2070. But never went below the 1800 limit for males NET. As I improved, my calories rose above my BMR and continued to rise compensating for the additional energy I needed to fuel the muscles I was enhancing and creating.


Sorry for the length, but I think that the long description was necessary as it kind of points out a good road map for people.

chrissyh

Thanks Banks!

Dave198lbs

thanks Banks
so many factors to consider...I am enjoying learning about this....your taking all this time to help us is appreciated
thanks again
Dave

SHBoss1673

it's my pleasure guys. Did that kind of clear some questions up? Or was it just too long to be helpful. I know I tend to write so much. But there's so many factors with this stuff, it's hard to be succinct.

kerrilucko

It's a matter for some debate, douganl.

Different trainers follow different rules of engagement as to where your cut off should be. And to be honest, none of them have the definitive answer for everyone. Because our bodies are all so highly diversified, what works for one, may not necessarilly work for all.

The one thing trainers, doctors, and research scientists almost universally agree with is that the 1200/1800 rule (women/men), is pretty much a line in the sand. With the exception of people who have so many fat stores that the body doesn't recognize a severe lack of food (obesity) or where the body is so small that they just don't need as many macro nutrients as the rest of us (women who are very short, somewhere in the 5' and lower range with a medium to small body frame), this rule is pretty much a given.

As to how much you should eat to provide a HEALTHY deficit. Well, that depends on many factors.
The determination shouldn't be made until someone knows what their BMI is, what their body fat% is, whether they have a metabolic rate in the normal range, whether they have any medical conditions that may preclude them from a normal weight loss (I.E. hypertension, or diabetes for example), and what their maintenance and BMR calories should be at.

Ultimately, most studies and doctors agree, a slow, stable, gradual weight loss program with a balanced healthy diet and regular exercise that actually causes physical depletion of energy stores (I.E. if you walk all day and then go for a slow walk at night, you're really not helping yourself. You need to actually stress the muscles a little to get real benefit from exercise.) is the best way to change yourself and lower your weight.
Now, you may ask, "What is considered slow and steady?" and I'll answer, most trainers and doctors agree, that for a reasonable healthy person (I.E. someone with a BMI under 30) you can shoot for between 1/4 and 1 lb per week weight loss. What you have to remember is not everyone will achieve results with 1 lb a week, and for those with a BMI already down around 25 or lower, even 1/2 a pound may be too much for their body. When you get to that area of BMI, Body Fat % plays a far larger roll, as that is what the body should be using to make up the difference. if your body fat % is low, then you will have a far harder time losing weight. And yes, it is possible to have a low Body fat % and a BMI above 25 (high muscle to fat ratio would do this, which is why athletes don't get a very accurate BMI score)

it's VERY IMPORTANT to note, that these are all NET NUMBERS. In other words, these numbers mean your deficit AFTER you calculate in how much exercise you do. Take my goals over the last 15 months for example.

I started 15 months ago with a BMI of 31 and a Body fat % of around 21%
I was trying for 2 lbs a week goal (and succeeding) with a NET calorie deficit of 1000 calories

12 months ago I had lost about 22 lbs and was showing slower losses. So I redid my numbers and goals to 1.5 lbs per week NET deficit in calories (750 calorie a day deficit) and continued losing successfully. At that point my BMI was about 28 and my Body fat % was about 18%

8 months ago I downed it again (this time realizing why right away) to about 1 lb per
week (500 cals), I had redone my numbers and realized I was only about 15 lbs from my goal. I now had a BMI of about 26 and a body fat % of 16%.

5 months ago I was at my goal of 180 lbs. My BMI was 24.5 and my Body fat was at about 14%. At that point I maintained (no more calorie deficit) and went on a far more demanding workout schedule to lower my body fat while not losing any more weight. This worked for the most part, while I did lose 2 lbs inadvertantly, it was just because I losing body fat without gaining significant muscle (it's hard to gain much muscle without eating at a caloric surplus)

For the last 3 months I have been vigorously attempting to gain back muscle, increase my anabolic metabolism (the hormones that increase muscle mass and cancel out cortisol production) and have gained 5 lbs of muscle mass back. I know this because my body fat % is now at about 11% and my BMI has raised from 23.5 to 24.

So that's a good example of a healthy weight loss and diet program. Notice how my net calories only went under my BMR when I was obese (my maintenance calories started at 2950, so even when obese I was eating 1950 PLUS what ever calories I burned exercising) my BMR at the time was 2070. But never went below the 1800 limit for males NET. As I improved, my calories rose above my BMR and continued to rise compensating for the additional energy I needed to fuel the muscles I was enhancing and creating.


Sorry for the length, but I think that the long description was necessary as it kind of points out a good road map for people.

well said Banks. Agree with everything you said. Just wanted to chime in and say for anyone worrying about this, you don't have to. Just make sure you:

1) set a goal that is heathy according to your BMI (as banks pointed out)
2) are eating your exercise calories back
3) never eat net calories below 1200 (for a woman)

it's really not as complcated as it seems, but if reading all this stuff is confusing you, just follow those 3 things and "starvation mode" shouldn't be a concern. There's another good post going on right now about starvation mode as well, it's a bit more.... in lamen's terms. :flowerforyou:

Dave198lbs

it's my pleasure guys. Did that kind of clear some questions up? Or was it just too long to be helpful. I know I tend to write so much. But there's so many factors with this stuff, it's hard to be succinct.

no way it was too long...I am a stubborn sort and the more info I have the better I feel about making a decsison...I just dont have the patience to explain sometimes and this info raises my comfort level
thanks
Dave

chrissyh

I think both of us (me and Dave) get it we're just not as good as you are explaining it and you guys are! that's why we're here to learn from the best - right dave?!

Dave198lbs

I think both of us (me and Dave) get it we're just not as good as you are explaining it and you guys are! that's why we're here to learn from the best - right dave?!

that's right.....I feel good and enjoy this positive approach...
it's all good
Dave

sassyredgirl

OMG im so confused. hehe :laugh:

chrissyh

sassy - just stick with what SHoss/Banks and Kerri said - it's much easier to grasp.

SHBoss1673

OMG im so confused. hehe :laugh:

You're KILLING me! :grumble:


:bigsmile:

sassyredgirl

OMG im so confused. hehe :laugh:

You're KILLING me! :grumble:


:bigsmile:
[/quote :sad: I don't wanna kill you. I just have to re read over and over my brain will sink it in i have the basis down just everyone's different oppinions its all good :flowerforyou:

stillkristi

Thanks for this thread, Dave. I think maybe a point of confusion is the idea that 1200 is a set in stone number of some kind. What it is is the average amount of consumed calories below which a woman should not go, otherwise a variety of health problems can occur. That number is extremely important for the WHO, because they are looking at starvation issues around the world, not our diet and weight loss problems here. :blushing: As a rule of thumb, we women in this rich (and generally overweight) country should not go below a minimum of 1200 calories a day, or we will also suffer those same health problems, though it may take longer due to either the amount of storage we carry around with us, or other factors such as access to medicine, clean drinking water, health care, etc. So, for us, the magic number may not be 1200, that is just the minimum below which we should not fall. The magic number that will allow us to lose weight in a healthy way is an individual number.

Now, my problem is a slightly different one, and I have hesitated to bring it up before for a number of reasons, not the least of which is my embarassment at the liight the folloiwng numbers sheds on my past habits. (Stress on the word PAST)
:blushing: :blushing: Here are the embarassing numbers: 461, 3400ish, 266, 2430. :blushing: :blushing:
Here is the story of the numbers. When I started here, I weighed 461 lbs. In order to achieve that wonderful milestone, I had to consume probably 3400 + calories a day. So, the BMR guide here at MFP did the math for me. If I want to lose 2 lbs a week, I should eat 2430 calories a day. That creates a 1000 calorie a day deficit without any exercise factored in yet. My problem is, I can't eat 2430 calories of healthy food. I can (and was) eat far more when I was eating empty calories, such as soda, chips, and soda, and more chips. Oh, and popcorn and occasionally candy. :blushing: :grumble: So, since I joined MFP on February 17, I have consistently eaten an averagge of 1200 to 1500 calories a day. For the past week, consistently about 1500 calories. I am eating three meals and at least one snack every day. I eat fresh salads, steamed vegies with a tiny bit of butter, lean meats, very little cheese, very little sauce of gravy of any kind. I have had an occasional (maybe every three or so days) cookie (paradise bakery oatmeal rasin 160 cals). I find my hunger satisfied. I occasionally have a craving for something like pizza or mashed potatos, but nothing I haven't been able to handle. I monitor how I am feeling carefully. If I go too long without eating, I tend to get a little light headed, but this is easily taken care of by eating, even just a few almonds or an apple.

Ok, that was a long story, sorry. Here is my concern. I am eating consistently about 1000 calories below the recommended calories per day. Every thing I have read on this site seems to point to that as a very bad idea. Is my extreme case unique? I am hoping Banks and Songbyrdsweetie will enlighten me. Thanks for wading through this long post those of you that did! :happy:

justmee

Thank you for the lengthy explanation.

I think I might understand why I am not losing weight after eight weeks of calorie counting and doubling my exercising routing.

I only aim for 1240 calories a day, and I ignore the extra calories I burn. I thought it would help me lose weight, but instead this week I have gained a pound and only lost 3lbs in eight weeks.

Hmm? How do I calculate all the stuff you calculated for yourself?
I have checked around the website and I see their version, but I used to work at a gym and I know they used more accurate measurements. Is that where you did your measurements?

Thanks for posting, I have been bummed about this weight loss.. I mean non-weight loss.

SHBoss1673

Thank you for the lengthy explanation.

I think I might understand why I am not losing weight after eight weeks of calorie counting and doubling my exercising routing.

I only aim for 1240 calories a day, and I ignore the extra calories I burn. I thought it would help me lose weight, but instead this week I have gained a pound and only lost 3lbs in eight weeks.

Hmm? How do I calculate all the stuff you calculated for yourself?
I have checked around the website and I see their version, but I used to work at a gym and I know they used more accurate measurements. Is that where you did your measurements?

Thanks for posting, I have been bummed about this weight loss.. I mean non-weight loss.

The calculations are actually relatively easy. If you use the BMI tool, and the goals calculator you can get them very quickly.

find your BMI, refer back to the ranges I was talking about (I.E. 30 and over, 2 lbs a week, 27 to 30 1.5 lbs per week, 25 to 27, 1 lb per week, and 25 and lower, use your body fat, and keep a very low, if any, deficit and use exercise and nutrition to lower your fat to muscle ratio)

Dave198lbs

I am in a bit of a different goal situation now....I am not so much trying to lose weight as I am trying to lose some fat and replace with muscle mass. and basically trying to stay at my current weight but with lowered fat %,...but....since I am trying to lose that fat I am burning alot of cals everyday and trying to also increase muscle mass....not easy to me....so what I am doing is burning avg of 900 cals and eating as clean as I can with a low deficit...I think if you burn more with exercise and eat good quality calories the shift will happen

what I see here with alot of people is a too heavy emphasis on total calories and not on quality of calories,,,,quality of the calories isnt discussed much...some will say since they have calorie room for a snack it is ok to eat cookies and such....I am not saying deprive yourself of a cookie...but if you eat that stuff you are not moving forward with a lowered fat% but at best, maintaining.......

for me, it is no longer about the caloric limits so much as it is quality of the calories and exercising to get my metabolism at a nice steady burn rate