"starvation mode".....

jenifer7teen

I like this explanation:

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

wow. that was great advice on so many levels. thanks!

jenifer7teen

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.

thanks!.... in summary, this is helpful. there are also more detailed articles in many of the posts throughout this thread.

MrsCon40

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.

This is NOT the truth. you may be getting stronger but you absolutely are not gaining muscle eating at a deficit - most certainly when you are netting 800 calories.

thelassiemickyjames

I stopped losing after 2 weeks on 1200, and it was a 2 week long plateau, untill somone on here told me to eat back at least 2/3 of my exercise calories because my body was in "starvation mode". I was very skeptical but I started eating them back and immediately started losing weight again.

alisha232

This is all great information. I struggled with making my 1200 cal a day goal at first. I say the best bet is to make sure your body has the fuel it needs especially if your incorporating physical activity to your plan.

WonderKP

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.

I agree completely with this!

lodro

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/17/3/313.full.pdf

however, CR puts you at 20%-30% of TDEE: usually that is well above 1200 calories/day

kaydensmom12

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.

I agree with this. Of course you feel full and strong, you are used that that amount of calories.
How are you getting all of your nutrients? Do you take a supplement that you are not logging or that I missed? With 800 calories I do not see how you are getting all of them.

heybales

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.

Wish I could underline to emphasis points.

Here is what always seems to be missed when this is brought up, and they did it exactly as it is usually done, so thank you for providing that link.

They looked at their BMR estimates, and what 50% of that would be.

The study had the guys reach at their lowest points 50% of their maintenance calories - you are exactly correct.

BMR and maintenance are two entirely different things. They would be close if you were sick and bedridden.

But these guys with known workout routines and activity levels had very tight maintenance estimates, based on very tight BMR estimates.

To emphasis that part again, their maintenance included their exercise calories, since that is not what MFP would do here.

And they ate 50% of those calories. And still had problems.

So let's take this 1450 BMR and assume that is accurate. Lets say sedentary activity level, so 1.2x 1450 = 1740 maintenance.
Now lets assume you exercise on an avg daily basis equals 500 calories, so now we have 2240 calories on what the study would call maintenance.

Now you can compare.

Does 50% of 2240 - 1120 calories with exercise going on sound that severe now? Remember, the exercise calories already included, unlike MFP where you must add them in and many don't.

I know there are folks on here doing a whole lot worse than that.

But there are a lot of folks wondering either why their weight loss stopped, they feel flabby, they gain weight with the smallest of binges, they are tired, they can't eat after working out, ect.
And they eat 1200 calories, and they burn 500 calories, and don't eat them back.

Big difference to that study, and yet they still had negative effects.

heybales

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.

This is NOT the truth. you may be getting stronger but you absolutely are not gaining muscle eating at a deficit - most certainly when you are netting 800 calories.

Actually, you are incorrect, their observation could indeed be truth. Could be what you said too.

You can gain muscle eating at a deficit - unless you are already trim and ripped.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

Russellb97

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.

Wish I could underline to emphasis points.

Here is what always seems to be missed when this is brought up, and you did it exactly as it is usually done, so thank you.

You looked at your BMR estimates, and what 50% of that would be.

The study had the guys reach at their lowest points 50% of their maintenance calories - you are exactly correct.

BMR and maintenance are two entirely different things. They would be close if you were sick and bedridden.

But these guys with known workout routines and activity levels had very tight maintenance estimates, based on very tight BMR estimates.

To emphasis that part again, their maintenance included their exercise calories, since that is not what MFP would do here.

And they ate 50% of those calories.

So let's take your 1450 BMR and assume that is accurate. Lets say sedentary activity level, so 1.2x 1450 = 1740 maintenance.
Now lets assume you exercise on an avg daily basis equals 500 calories, so now we have 2240 calories on what the study would call maintenance.

Now you can compare.

Does 50% of 2240 - 1120 calories with exercise going on sound that severe now? Remember, the exercise calories already included, unlike MFP where you must add them in and many don't.

I know there are folks on here doing a whole lot worse than that.

But there are a lot of folks wondering either why their weight loss stopped, they feel flabby, they gain weight with the smallest of binges, they are tired, they can't eat after working out, ect.
And they eat 1200 calories, and they burn 500 calories, and don't eat them back.

Big difference to that study.

Good post, I was thinking the same thing when I read this.

naku

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.

this is amazing, we should really use this in africa as they are getting pretty thin out there. clearly if they'd just stop eating they'd gain it back and be fine.... greedy b'rds!

yuckidah

Jenifer7teen, I too am befuddled with all the 'Starvation Mode' theories, but I do know that in 20+yrs of almost constant dieting I have literally doubled in weight.
I don't think it's the under-eating that's the problem - I think the issues arise when you eat 'normally' again, even for a short time, and your body decides to hold on to every little morsel which equates, of course, to rapid weight gain.
Then you starve again.
Then you eat again and your body holds it all, you gain back the weight & a little bit more.
So you starve again.

That said, I am comfortable eating 900/1000cal daily. If I was hungry I'd eat the remaining couple of hundred.
I am fearful of running out (it's a head thing) so I always end up with too many (is there such a thing) left at the end of each day.
I like knowing that I *could* splash out if I wanted to. It rarely happens.
I guess it's a control thing. Possibly the only thing some of us can really control in life.

What I have learnt is that it is very unlikely I will EVER be able to eat like a 'normal' person. I have totally screwed up my body/metabolism by this on/off starvation for more than 2 decades. I began at age 18 and wish I'd never started. I was about 130lbs & thought I was fat. If I'd just carried on I would never be as fat as I am.
I now tell (beg/plead) my younger cousins & other teen girls to never begin dieting - just adopt healthier eating habits & make small changes. Once the dieting/starvation/deprivation cycle begins it's all down hill (and up scale!)

Russellb97

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.

This is NOT the truth. you may be getting stronger but you absolutely are not gaining muscle eating at a deficit - most certainly when you are netting 800 calories.

Actually, you are incorrect, their observation could indeed be truth. Could be what you said too.

You can gain muscle eating at a deficit - unless you are already trim and ripped.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

You can definitely get stronger on a caloric deficit, but it's pretty much impossible to build muscle size. The reason why is our muscle glycogen is depleted while we are in calorie restriction, and when glycogen goes so does some water from your muscles. Which makes them smaller.

I'm a good example, the morning of my spike day when I'm glycogen depleted (from 6 days of calorie deficits) my muscles are smaller and flatter,my weight is also at the lowest for the week. Then when i spike and eat 5-6K calories, the water and glycogen flow back into my muscles and I literally feel a "pump" as if i just worked out, but I'm also a few pounds heavier.

hagamivida

I have the exact same questions and problem, and I just posted a question about it, too. :-(

Russellb97

Starvation mode is nothing to be afraid of, once you know how the "anti-starvation" hormone leptin works it's an easy problem to fix.


* the hormone leptin helps control hunger and metabolism. When leptin levels are low, our hunger increases and our metabolism can slow down.
*there is not a "magic" calorie number that causes it
*There is not a "magic" body-fat threshold for each of us, basically we are NOT stuck with what we got.
*leptin declines when we have several days of calorie deficits
*you can still lose weight leptin is low, the biggest issue is keeping it off.
*12 hours of overeating spikes leptin back up

6 days of deficit, one day of surplus (spike day) this is the formula that has allowed me to lose 100+ lbs almost 8 years ago, and most importantly keep it off.

yuckidah

Starvation mode is nothing to be afraid of, once you know how the "anti-starvation" hormone leptin works it's an easy problem to fix.


* the hormone leptin helps control hunger and metabolism. When leptin levels are low, our hunger increases and our metabolism can slow down.
*there is not a "magic" calorie number that causes it
*There is not a "magic" body-fat threshold for each of us, basically we are NOT stuck with what we got.
*leptin declines when we have several days of calorie deficits
*you can still lose weight leptin is low, the biggest issue is keeping it off.
*12 hours of overeating spikes leptin back up

6 days of deficit, one day of surplus (spike day) this is the formula that has allowed me to lose 100+ lbs almost 8 years ago, and most importantly keep it off.

Russell, thanks for this info.
How much over your daily allowance do you go on your surplu/spike day?
This leptiin you speak of - is there a way of replacing it in the body (aside from getting your diet in check) ie, is it in high levels in certain foods? Can it be sourced like taking a vitamin?
I think I'll head straight to Google, lol..........

Edited to add: I just found this: http://www.ehow.com/info_8413985_foods-boost-leptin.html

Hmmmm, now I'm really confused - this article says that in order to lose weight we need to keep our leptin levels LOW http://www.ehow.com/about_5433934_foods-contain-leptin.html

Russellb97

Starvation mode is nothing to be afraid of, once you know how the "anti-starvation" hormone leptin works it's an easy problem to fix.


* the hormone leptin helps control hunger and metabolism. When leptin levels are low, our hunger increases and our metabolism can slow down.
*there is not a "magic" calorie number that causes it
*There is not a "magic" body-fat threshold for each of us, basically we are NOT stuck with what we got.
*leptin declines when we have several days of calorie deficits
*you can still lose weight leptin is low, the biggest issue is keeping it off.
*12 hours of overeating spikes leptin back up

6 days of deficit, one day of surplus (spike day) this is the formula that has allowed me to lose 100+ lbs almost 8 years ago, and most importantly keep it off.

Russell, thanks for this info.
How much over your daily allowance do you go on your surplu/spike day?
This leptiin you speak of - is there a way of replacing it in the body (aside from getting your diet in check) ie, is it in high levels in certain foods? Can it be sourced like taking a vitamin?
I think I'll head straight to Google, lol..........

Edited to add: I just found this: http://www.ehow.com/info_8413985_foods-boost-leptin.html

Hmmmm, now I'm really confused - this article says that in order to lose weight we need to keep our leptin levels LOW http://www.ehow.com/about_5433934_foods-contain-leptin.html

It's because eating less causes low levels of leptin, so it would make sense that you'd want it low because then you're eating less. The problem is, leptin is the "anti-starvation" hormone. When are in constant caloric deficits, our body's response is to try and prolong out fat stores by lower metabolism, and increase our cravings to get us to eat. This is how nature has hardwired us to survive famine. It doesn't know the difference between a real famine and a diet, because the same thing happens physically, we consistently burn stored energy and never in return store energy back.

Russellb97

Also I use 2X(BMR) for my spike day goal, I think even just a tad over your total energy expenditure would do the trick. I feel like it would be impossible to be in "starvation mode" while you are actually storing energy, it's a contradiction.

The studies show that 12 hours of overeating is enough to get leptin levels to spike back up, so this is why a "cheat meal" doesn't do the trick and it should be about a full day.

CakeFit21

bump

andrejjorje

Here is your answer.

As for 1200 cals/day this is only a relative no. like the infamous 2000 cals/day. These 2 no. are just references for the purpose of orientation. Not 2 bodies are identical.


>>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
[/quote]

now that makes some sense to me....
[/quote]

jenifer7teen

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.

This is NOT the truth. you may be getting stronger but you absolutely are not gaining muscle eating at a deficit - most certainly when you are netting 800 calories.

Actually, you are incorrect, their observation could indeed be truth. Could be what you said too.

You can gain muscle eating at a deficit - unless you are already trim and ripped.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/447514-athletes-can-gain-muscle-while-losing-fat-on-deficit-diet

THANK YOU! I am not making up the fact that my times on running are improving, the weight i use to circuit train is increasing, and my body tone has changed (my boyfriend commented on this as well). I obviously still have fat to lose, so doesnt it make sense that my calorie deficit is causing me to lose "fat weight".... it certainly doesnt seem to be targeting my muscles as i am getting stronger and more toned, not weaker. maybe i should take some pictures to provide more evidence.

jenifer7teen

Here is your answer.

As for 1200 cals/day this is only a relative no. like the infamous 2000 cals/day. These 2 no. are just references for the purpose of orientation. Not 2 bodies are identical.


>>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....
[/quote]
[/quote]

this makes a lot of sense to me too!!! If/when i hit a plateau i will certainly change it up with a gradual increase of caloric intake, but right now i am losing at a steady pace and getting stronger so i don't see the problem. oh, and i do take a multipurpose vitamin daily (partially because i am a vegetarian and miss some nutrients like the B's and Iron) because it can sometimes be difficult to meet nutritional needs on any sort of caloric deficit.