"starvation mode".....

jenifer7teen

ok. i understand that a person's metabolism is influenced by their overall intake, but i am really confused about the whole concept of starvation mode. it seems like whenever the topic is brought up people bring up anecdotal evidence which is not helpful to me... ex) 'when i was eating less than 1200 caloreis a day, i gained weight". without knowing this person's ability to correctly calculate their intake vs exercise (etc) there are just too many variables; i dont want to base my diet around anecdotes. so if anyone is really educated on the subject i'd love some help with these questions:

1) does starvation mode exist (where your body suddenly holds onto everything you eat and can cause you to stop losing weight/or start gaining inspite of a low calorie intake)?
2) how low of an intake are we talking about... is it really anything below 1200?
3) how does it work if you, say, eat 1300 calories one day, then 900 for 2 days, then 1200 the next..... how long does it take to "kick in"?
4) is this a short term reality, or more of a concern for someone who consistently and in a long term way has maintained a very low calorie diet?
5) i know that your metabolism slows when you arent eating anything (ex... skipping breakfast and fasting til dinner).... but what if you eat/snack consistently (like 8, 100 calorie meals paced out through the day) wouldnt that keep your metabolism strong even if you might be cutting below 1200 total?

ok... that's it for now. I am just really confused.... i don't eat my exercise calories back.... and somedays i eat closer to 800 calories than 1200, and the whole red "starvation mode" thing makes me worry. but i ALWAYS eat if i feel hungry. i believe strongly in listening to your body--- not making it feel deprived! but do i really need to FORCE myself to add more calories when i am trying to lose weight if i am not hungry?!

Canadien

I've been wondering about this too! It's so confusing, everyone says different things.

runbyme

Wonderful questions Jenifer and I have no answers but question the same as you do. I can't wrap my head around the "eat more food to lose weight" theory. I'll be waiting for an educated answer the same as you! Good luck with your weight loss journey!

rochey1098

The less you eat, the more you'll lose... and the more your metabolism will try to compensate. You will also burn more than just fat if you try to lose too much too fast. Does starvation mode exist? Does it matter? If you eat your daily calorie allowance you will lose weight healthily, that's all that matters. If you're finding it hard to eat your daily intake then try eating some of the things you ate that caused you to gain weight in the first place, failing that, healthier options include olive oil, milk, cheese, meat, nuts, seeds etc

As a side note, it would be amazing if the human body could keep its fat reserves while exercising and eating less because this means that a hunter could catch food all day long without ever having to eat more to compensate. We know this isn't true though and most tribes expect their hunters to eat part of what they catch before they even get it home

sharoniballoni

I don't believe there's any hard evidence of it and there's certainly no set number of minimum calories that would cause it across the board. Everyone has different bodies and metabolisms. My minimum can't possibly be the same as a man's, for example.

That said, I like to eat. The less you eat, the less you can eat because your body will adjust to getting that number of calories. So if you under-eat to lose weight, you are likely putting yourself at risk for quick regain if/when you start to eat "normal" again.

Further, when you under-eat, you aren't just losing fat and water. You're also losing muscle. The more muscle you lose, the slower your metabolism becomes. If you work out, you need to feed the muscles. They are what will keep your metabolism up.

D446

I believe it is different for everyone. You can't really say 1200 is a definite number, but I suppose it is a safe guide.

If you do lower your intake, your metabolism will slow after a while, and once you start eating normally again it will probably take a while to re- adjust. You may also gain weight when upping the calories again, but I found this happened when I went from 1200 calories to say, 1800, which mfp told me I should still be losing.

spectralmoon

What I can say is that I was eating about 700-900 calories a day by lifestyle (videogames + (junkfood - skipped meals) + walking stairs between classes) for about 7 years, and I put on 50 extra pounds. I am exercising slightly more than before, eating 1200 a day, and losing it fast (especially from my face). Pretty willing to believe that it exists at this point.

lolibunny

I liked this answer from another mfp user

"First, what is starvation mode? I found this direct answer on netwellness.org --

A starvation diet does not mean the absence of food. It means cutting the total caloric intake to less than 50% of what the body requires. Using myself as an example, my current weight is 178 lbs. and my bmr is 1450. So, I would have to cut my calories to below 725 per day. However, if I were at my goal weight of 150 lbs., my bmr would be 1129, and so I would have to cut my calories to below 565 calories. This is not borne out by the infamous Minnesota Semistarvation Study (1950), 36 young, healthy, psychologically normal men while restricting their caloric intake for 6 months. Their calories were restricted in various phases, but the least amount of calories they were allowed was 50% of the "normal" maintenance calories. Notice, this was dubbed a "semi" starvation diet.

Yes, their metabolic rates were significantly lowered -- to something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.

Please go to this link and read. Do some studying, There is no STARVATION MODE here in the USA! Go to third world countries then you will see what starvation mode really looks like!
http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/ lyle.htm This is a link from a scientist, very good paper.
Truth of it is, the less you weigh, the less your body needs in calories to fuel it!"

sullivann

It's very simple. Your body needs fuel to function.

shouldieatmyexercisecalories.com

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works

Read those for more info.

smartal5

Here are some informational links about the topic:

http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode
http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_response

lilojoke

Thought this article explained it well

http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/ladyhawk00/view/starvation-mode-how-it-works-98802

MaximalLife

ok. i understand that a person's metabolism is influenced by their overall intake, but i am really confused about the whole concept of starvation mode. it seems like whenever the topic is brought up people bring up anecdotal evidence which is not helpful to me... ex) 'when i was eating less than 1200 caloreis a day, i gained weight". without knowing this person's ability to correctly calculate their intake vs exercise (etc) there are just too many variables; i dont want to base my diet around anecdotes. so if anyone is really educated on the subject i'd love some help with these questions:

1) does starvation mode exist (where your body suddenly holds onto everything you eat and can cause you to stop losing weight/or start gaining inspite of a low calorie intake)?
2) how low of an intake are we talking about... is it really anything below 1200?
3) how does it work if you, say, eat 1300 calories one day, then 900 for 2 days, then 1200 the next..... how long does it take to "kick in"?
4) is this a short term reality, or more of a concern for someone who consistently and in a long term way has maintained a very low calorie diet?
5) i know that your metabolism slows when you arent eating anything (ex... skipping breakfast and fasting til dinner).... but what if you eat/snack consistently (like 8, 100 calorie meals paced out through the day) wouldnt that keep your metabolism strong even if you might be cutting below 1200 total?

ok... that's it for now. I am just really confused.... i don't eat my exercise calories back.... and somedays i eat closer to 800 calories than 1200, and the whole red "starvation mode" thing makes me worry. but i ALWAYS eat if i feel hungry. i believe strongly in listening to your body--- not making it feel deprived! but do i really need to FORCE myself to add more calories when i am trying to lose weight if i am not hungry?!

You are your own case study.

You are sure to fail given what you just disclosed about your diet.
Let us all know how it works out a year from now after you gain all your weight back and then some.

I don't mean to be unkind, but you are intellectualizing away your own health.
Until somebody offers evidence supporting the many virtues of the starvation diet, I'd err on the side of caution.

It's your health.

ashnm88

I believe in the starvation mode. I use to only 800 to 1000 calories a day for months, I ended up putting weight back on that I had lost. I was also tired a lot during that time. Now that I eat 1200 cals a day or more I keep losing, and have actual energy and not tired.

JarrodFit4Life

"Starvation Mode" is a simple way of saying that your metabolism slows and your food intake drops because you are losing muscle as well as fat and water weight. Muscle burns more calories than fat, so the more muscle you lose, the fewer calories you burn (you still burn calories, just not as quickly). A calorie deficit will cause weight loss, whether its a HEALTHY DEFICIT or an unhealthy deficit.

It is impossible for your body to hold on to everything that it consumes. Think about all the malnourished people in third world countries out there...They would be prime candidates for starvation mode, yet they continue to die of starvation!

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I would like to see some more recent studies done on this-- the 1950s study is quoted in all the links I read, but nothing more current.

Quasita

Absolutely it exists! Starvation mode is most likely to kick in when you go long periods without eating anything habitually. The body gets used to this, and when it knows it's only getting that say, 400 calorie lunch, it begins to save it up, knowing that it's not getting anymore for another day.
There's no set calories that trigger this. It's more about the habit of things. Think of it this way: When you eat, it's like putting gas in the engine. If you wait until the tank is 100% empty, it's a lot harder to start it up again than if you fill it when you're at a 1/4 tank. It takes more energy and effort to get the metabolism going once you allow it to stop completely... The easiest way to keep it going is to keep fuel pumping throughout the day.
That being said, if you fall into this state, you gain an absurd amount of weight if you begin eating "normally" (as happened with me, I was nearly anorexic and then began eating meals randomly, I gained over 100 lbs in a year).
It's not really something that's going to happen over a few days, not to get you into a permanent state anyway. It takes a little while but it always takes quite some time to get out of it. I was on thyroid hormones for 6+ months after my diagnosis, and still have to be pretty careful... So take it from me, food is an important fuel and it's better to eat extra and work it off than to not eat enough and deal with the consequences!

tennillewade

I don't quite understand the science myself, I would think the same thing as you do. if you eat 8 100 cal meals thoughout the day seems you would still be boosting your metabolism because you body will always be using the energy it gets from the food you are eating. I will say this its not how much you eat necessarily, its what you eat. Your body gets more energy from health vegetables and whole grains and fruit. Those foods also give you a fuller feeling for long. So my advice to you would be to try changing up your diet and trash processed foods, if you eat them and start filling up on fruit veggies whole grains and see if that helps boost your energy and metabolism. and improve you weightloss. you have probably heard this before :-/

jenifer7teen

ok... i havent read them all but those are some GREAT LINKS. thanks everyone!!!

i LOVE being a physically strong woman and would not want to lose weight at the expense of losing my muscles. from what i have read so far i feel like my diet/exercise program is sound. the truth is i am measurably getting stronger and faster and GAINING muscles, and my body still has plenty of fat to burn even if my calories are under the MFP recommendation sometimes. and once i reach my healthy goal i know i will have to slowly increase my daily intake as to not regain. ok.... i will go read some more.

jenifer7teen

ok. i understand that a person's metabolism is influenced by their overall intake, but i am really confused about the whole concept of starvation mode. it seems like whenever the topic is brought up people bring up anecdotal evidence which is not helpful to me... ex) 'when i was eating less than 1200 caloreis a day, i gained weight". without knowing this person's ability to correctly calculate their intake vs exercise (etc) there are just too many variables; i dont want to base my diet around anecdotes. so if anyone is really educated on the subject i'd love some help with these questions:

1) does starvation mode exist (where your body suddenly holds onto everything you eat and can cause you to stop losing weight/or start gaining inspite of a low calorie intake)?
2) how low of an intake are we talking about... is it really anything below 1200?
3) how does it work if you, say, eat 1300 calories one day, then 900 for 2 days, then 1200 the next..... how long does it take to "kick in"?
4) is this a short term reality, or more of a concern for someone who consistently and in a long term way has maintained a very low calorie diet?
5) i know that your metabolism slows when you arent eating anything (ex... skipping breakfast and fasting til dinner).... but what if you eat/snack consistently (like 8, 100 calorie meals paced out through the day) wouldnt that keep your metabolism strong even if you might be cutting below 1200 total?

ok... that's it for now. I am just really confused.... i don't eat my exercise calories back.... and somedays i eat closer to 800 calories than 1200, and the whole red "starvation mode" thing makes me worry. but i ALWAYS eat if i feel hungry. i believe strongly in listening to your body--- not making it feel deprived! but do i really need to FORCE myself to add more calories when i am trying to lose weight if i am not hungry?!

You are your own case study.

You are sure to fail given what you just disclosed about your diet.
Let us all know how it works out a year from now after you gain all your weight back and then some.

I don't mean to be unkind, but you are intellectualizing away your own health.
Until somebody offers evidence supporting the many virtues of the starvation diet, I'd err on the side of caution.

It's your health.

you are "sure to fail given what you disclosed"??? are you "sure"? if so, than why? i dont think i am intellectualizing my health by asking for reasons. i am trying to be wise. asking for science is better than relying on myth without evidence.

jenifer7teen

I would like to see some more recent studies done on this-- the 1950s study is quoted in all the links I read, but nothing more current.

good point. regardless- there may be more recent studies, but how thorough/relevant/unbiased/or extensive? it has always felt a bit like a myth to me. i mean if you're talking 1950's studies think of the inane ideas that were generally accepted facts around that time?!!! black people are less human; woman don't really have sexual needs or orgasmic possibilities.

Acg67

5) i know that your metabolism slows when you arent eating anything (ex... skipping breakfast and fasting til dinner).... but what if you eat/snack consistently (like 8, 100 calorie meals paced out through the day) wouldnt that keep your metabolism strong even if you might be cutting below 1200 total?

Increased meal frequency does not increase metabolism and metabolic slowdown will occur somewhere around the 48-72 hr mark, not simply skipping breakfast

As for "starvation mode"

from lyle mcdonald

Quite in fact, most studies don’t examine lean individuals at all but there is one study that is possibly relevant which is the seminal Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study.

I’ve talked about this study before and it represents one of the most massively well-controlled studies on the topic ever done (or that will ever be done). In it, war objectors were placed on approximately a 50% reduction from maintenance calories (which only put them around 1500 calories/day or thereabouts in the first place) and were held there for 6 straight months. Activity (walking) was enforced and most men reached the lower limits of body fat percentage by the end of it. I’d note that only men were studied so it’s possible that women, who are prone to showing more resistance to fat loss, could show a differential response.
And the total reduction in daily energy expenditure only amounted to 40% (of which the majority of that was due to the weight loss). Weight and fat loss had basically stopped at the end of the study which makes sense; the original 50% deficit had been reduced to at most 10% due to the 40% reduction in metabolic rate.

The bottom line is that no study I’ve ever seen has suggested that total daily energy expenditure could be reduced to the levels that are implied by ‘gaining fat rapidly at 700-900 calories/day’.

So what’s going on? Certainly some bad hormonal things go on when you combine heavy activity with heavy deficits for extended periods to low body fat levels (I’d note that various types of cylical dieting such as my own Ultimate Diet 2.0 and Martin Berkhan’s Intermittent Fasting approach seem to side-step at least some of this). Thyroid levels drops, nervous system output drops, testosterone levels crater, cortisol goes through the roof.

And I would suspect/suggest that it is this last effect that is being observed and taken as evidence of ‘metabolic damage’. In a water depleted, glycogen depleted bodybuilder coming out of a contest diet, water balance is going to go absolutely crazy and cortisol is one mediator of this. Water retention secondary to glycogen storage will also contribute.

So you have a situation where a post-contest bodybuilder may be seeing just massive swings in water weight (which can appear like rapid fat gain) following the contest; especially when you consider the normal runaway hunger that tends to occur at that point.
Between glycogen storage and simple cortisol mediated water retention, I can’t see any other reason to explain the observation. Even one day of overeating carbs can cause massive water retention (for example, shifts in water weight of 7-10 pounds over a day or two are not uncommon on cyclical diets) and I suspect that’s what is being observed.

Which is all a long way of saying the following: certainly there is evidence of metabolic derangement when you diet people down to low levels of body fat, this can probably be made worse if you undergo the normal severe overtraining cycle that most dieters go through at that point. But I don’t see any physiological way that true rapid FAT gain can occur at such low calorie levels. I’d suspect that water retention (and a bit of neurosis equating water weight gain with true fat gain) is the primary culprit here.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-qa.html

kluvsj

for the last 20 years atleast starting back in highschool ive always been taught to eat 1200 calories a day, eating any less than that starves your body of the proper nutrients it needs to function, and i agree with allot of other peoples post im sure on a daily basis without even knowing it i was probably eating less than 1200 calories, and it made it so my body went into starvation mode and i held on to the weight, i also read that if you are not losing any weight than you are eating too many calories but it is also the same for eating way less, the norm is 1200 for a woman....its way different for a man, i strongly believe that you should never eat less than 1200 calories and curious if maybe something else is going on in your day to day schedule that is making it so you are not hungry are the choices you are making in food selection all healthy ones???

Acg67

for the last 20 years atleast starting back in highschool ive always been taught to eat 1200 calories a day, eating any less than that starves your body of the proper nutrients it needs to function, and i agree with allot of other peoples post im sure on a daily basis without even knowing it i was probably eating less than 1200 calories, and it made it so my body went into starvation mode and i held on to the weight, i also read that if you are not losing any weight than you are eating too many calories but it is also the same for eating way less, the norm is 1200 for a woman....its way different for a man, i strongly believe that you should never eat less than 1200 calories and curious if maybe something else is going on in your day to day schedule that is making it so you are not hungry are the choices you are making in food selection all healthy ones???

While i agree that the 1200 number is often thrown around since it's harder to get in adequate nutrition at lower levels of cals, it is entirely dependent on ht/wt/activity. A women who is very petite has different caloric needs then someone who is taller and heavier, that should go without saying though

jenifer7teen

5) i know that your metabolism slows when you arent eating anything (ex... skipping breakfast and fasting til dinner).... but what if you eat/snack consistently (like 8, 100 calorie meals paced out through the day) wouldnt that keep your metabolism strong even if you might be cutting below 1200 total?

Increased meal frequency does not increase metabolism and metabolic slowdown will occur somewhere around the 48-72 hr mark, not simply skipping breakfast

As for "starvation mode"

from lyle mcdonald

Quite in fact, most studies don’t examine lean individuals at all but there is one study that is possibly relevant which is the seminal Minnesota Semi-Starvation Study.

I’ve talked about this study before and it represents one of the most massively well-controlled studies on the topic ever done (or that will ever be done). In it, war objectors were placed on approximately a 50% reduction from maintenance calories (which only put them around 1500 calories/day or thereabouts in the first place) and were held there for 6 straight months. Activity (walking) was enforced and most men reached the lower limits of body fat percentage by the end of it. I’d note that only men were studied so it’s possible that women, who are prone to showing more resistance to fat loss, could show a differential response.
And the total reduction in daily energy expenditure only amounted to 40% (of which the majority of that was due to the weight loss). Weight and fat loss had basically stopped at the end of the study which makes sense; the original 50% deficit had been reduced to at most 10% due to the 40% reduction in metabolic rate.

The bottom line is that no study I’ve ever seen has suggested that total daily energy expenditure could be reduced to the levels that are implied by ‘gaining fat rapidly at 700-900 calories/day’.

So what’s going on? Certainly some bad hormonal things go on when you combine heavy activity with heavy deficits for extended periods to low body fat levels (I’d note that various types of cylical dieting such as my own Ultimate Diet 2.0 and Martin Berkhan’s Intermittent Fasting approach seem to side-step at least some of this). Thyroid levels drops, nervous system output drops, testosterone levels crater, cortisol goes through the roof.

And I would suspect/suggest that it is this last effect that is being observed and taken as evidence of ‘metabolic damage’. In a water depleted, glycogen depleted bodybuilder coming out of a contest diet, water balance is going to go absolutely crazy and cortisol is one mediator of this. Water retention secondary to glycogen storage will also contribute.

So you have a situation where a post-contest bodybuilder may be seeing just massive swings in water weight (which can appear like rapid fat gain) following the contest; especially when you consider the normal runaway hunger that tends to occur at that point.
Between glycogen storage and simple cortisol mediated water retention, I can’t see any other reason to explain the observation. Even one day of overeating carbs can cause massive water retention (for example, shifts in water weight of 7-10 pounds over a day or two are not uncommon on cyclical diets) and I suspect that’s what is being observed.

Which is all a long way of saying the following: certainly there is evidence of metabolic derangement when you diet people down to low levels of body fat, this can probably be made worse if you undergo the normal severe overtraining cycle that most dieters go through at that point. But I don’t see any physiological way that true rapid FAT gain can occur at such low calorie levels. I’d suspect that water retention (and a bit of neurosis equating water weight gain with true fat gain) is the primary culprit here.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/permanent-metabolic-damage-qa.html

now that makes some sense to me....

Rae6503

I like this explanation:

http://body-improvements.com/resources/eat/#starvationmode

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

I would like to see some more recent studies done on this-- the 1950s study is quoted in all the links I read, but nothing more current.

good point. regardless- there may be more recent studies, but how thorough/relevant/unbiased/or extensive? it has always felt a bit like a myth to me. i mean if you're talking 1950's studies think of the inane ideas that were generally accepted facts around that time?!!! black people are less human; woman don't really have sexual needs or orgasmic possibilities.

I guess it's not just the time period but also the fact that there's only one study.

If you ARE looking at that study-- read the side effects that those men suffered as a result of the study. They actually began to develop anorexia-type psychological problems because of their starvation. When I first read that part of the results I was absolutely shocked. There are more problems with way under-eating than "starvation mode" whether it exists or not.

edited for grammar *blush*

jenifer7teen

for the last 20 years atleast starting back in highschool ive always been taught to eat 1200 calories a day, eating any less than that starves your body of the proper nutrients it needs to function, and i agree with allot of other peoples post im sure on a daily basis without even knowing it i was probably eating less than 1200 calories, and it made it so my body went into starvation mode and i held on to the weight, i also read that if you are not losing any weight than you are eating too many calories but it is also the same for eating way less, the norm is 1200 for a woman....its way different for a man, i strongly believe that you should never eat less than 1200 calories and curious if maybe something else is going on in your day to day schedule that is making it so you are not hungry are the choices you are making in food selection all healthy ones???

you could read my diary... but in summary i am a vegetarian, still prioritizing protein, eat virtually no sweets (unless you count alcohol), and very limited processed foods since i cook all my food and eat primarily vegetables/legumes/soy-based products. i don't drink diet soda's or something to make myself FEEL full. i guess the thing i am worried about is the idea that 'starvation' mode is something "i've always been taught..." like you said. it MIGHT be true, but is it REALLY? especially at moderate levels like 700-1000 calories (as opposed to eating 0-300).

IvoryParchment

The 1200 calories is an arbitrary number chosen for safety. Below that, it is difficult to get all the vitamins, minerals, and protein you need for minimal health. But logic should tell you that starvation mode for a 6'4" man and a 5'1" woman will be at different calorie levels. And if you don't eat sufficient nourishment, you can still have problems at higher calorie levels (eg, if you drink soda instead of having meals).

One important thing is that to build and maintain your lean body tissues, you need enough protein, calories, vitamins and minerals. And you need all of them all at the same time. To build fat, all you need is excess calories. It's like building a house: You need all the building materials to make anything, or else all you get is a pile of junk in the front yard.

The body does function differently at lower calorie levels. If you eat nothing but water, you will lose weight more slowly as time goes on, but you certainly won't gain any weight. Your body reduces your calorie needs by making less cholesterol, less protein, less blood hemoglobin, etc. You become less active. Look at the videos of people in refugee camps, too weak to brush away the flies. They aren't consuming many calories like that. They aren't losing weight as fast as you would predict from the calorie calculators. But they're still losing, not gaining.

If you feel good, if you have energy, if you're not bruising or getting short of breath or losing your hair or getting puffy ankles, your metabolism is probably working normally.

gayatrik

ok. i understand that a person's metabolism is influenced by their overall intake, but i am really confused about the whole concept of starvation mode. it seems like whenever the topic is brought up people bring up anecdotal evidence which is not helpful to me... ex) 'when i was eating less than 1200 caloreis a day, i gained weight". without knowing this person's ability to correctly calculate their intake vs exercise (etc) there are just too many variables; i dont want to base my diet around anecdotes. so if anyone is really educated on the subject i'd love some help with these questions:

1) does starvation mode exist (where your body suddenly holds onto everything you eat and can cause you to stop losing weight/or start gaining inspite of a low calorie intake)?
2) how low of an intake are we talking about... is it really anything below 1200?
3) how does it work if you, say, eat 1300 calories one day, then 900 for 2 days, then 1200 the next..... how long does it take to "kick in"?
4) is this a short term reality, or more of a concern for someone who consistently and in a long term way has maintained a very low calorie diet?
5) i know that your metabolism slows when you arent eating anything (ex... skipping breakfast and fasting til dinner).... but what if you eat/snack consistently (like 8, 100 calorie meals paced out through the day) wouldnt that keep your metabolism strong even if you might be cutting below 1200 total?

ok... that's it for now. I am just really confused.... i don't eat my exercise calories back.... and somedays i eat closer to 800 calories than 1200, and the whole red "starvation mode" thing makes me worry. but i ALWAYS eat if i feel hungry. i believe strongly in listening to your body--- not making it feel deprived! but do i really need to FORCE myself to add more calories when i am trying to lose weight if i am not hungry?!

I join ur confusion club. when i diet ... I lose weight but gain equally n more faster. So even I am confused

Saffyra

I would like to see some more recent studies done on this-- the 1950s study is quoted in all the links I read, but nothing more current.

good point. regardless- there may be more recent studies, but how thorough/relevant/unbiased/or extensive? it has always felt a bit like a myth to me. i mean if you're talking 1950's studies think of the inane ideas that were generally accepted facts around that time?!!! black people are less human; woman don't really have sexual needs or orgasmic possibilities.

I guess it's not just the time period but also the fact that there's only one study.

If you ARE looking at that study-- read the side effects that those men suffered as a result of the study. They actually began to develop anorexia-type psychological problems because of their starvation. When I first read that part of the results I was absolutely shocked. There are more problems with way under-eating than "starvation mode" whether it exists or not.

edited for grammar *blush*

I believe the reason there has been no subsequent starvation studies (at least in the US) is because nowdays that would be considered torture.

I think there might have been a more recent Russian study but it was not as in depth as the 1950's one.