starvation mode

Coramae09

I eat 3 squares a day and if I exercise that day, than I'll eat IF I'm hungry. If I have the extra calories to eat than fine but if I'm not hungry than I don't worry about it. My body will tell me what it needs.

Yasmine91

bump

heybales

I eat 3 squares a day and if I exercise that day, than I'll eat IF I'm hungry. If I have the extra calories to eat than fine but if I'm not hungry than I don't worry about it. My body will tell me what it needs.

Sadly, the majority of people are here on MFP because they did exactly that, listened to their body, instead of using their mind.

Now they have weight to lose.

Time to listen to the mind and think this out.

It's a lovely sounding idea, don't get me wrong, but perhaps not the best principle.

heybales

But the exercise I do is not strenuous like years ago (before I bought an exercise bike and stopped going to the gym daily); and I don't even sweat, but it states it's something like 150 calories for 1/2 hour.

Anyway, I would gather to guess it's a few hundred calories off between consumption of food with the addition of exercise, for me anyway. I know my food content is pretty accurate for weights and measures - including the guesswork.

Now you actually have the idea very right on.

The deficit is supposed to come from maintenance calories, not BMR calories.

Because the normal non-exercise daily activities that make up the maintenance calories are generally low key enough, the main energy source is fat. No need to eat that back.

The problem is today with our culture, there is very little daily activity to give much of a safe spread between maintenance and BMR level.

And that level of activity you are doing is probably right at the safe level, perhaps top of it. No need to eat that back.

The only problem is that if you selected too aggressive of a weight loss goal, MFP is more than happy to put your goal calories way under your BMR, unless the math makes it go under 1200, then for safety reasons they stop there.

Helloitsdan

But the exercise I do is not strenuous like years ago (before I bought an exercise bike and stopped going to the gym daily); and I don't even sweat, but it states it's something like 150 calories for 1/2 hour.

Anyway, I would gather to guess it's a few hundred calories off between consumption of food with the addition of exercise, for me anyway. I know my food content is pretty accurate for weights and measures - including the guesswork.

Now you actually have the idea very right on.

The deficit is supposed to come from maintenance calories, not BMR calories.

Because the normal non-exercise daily activities that make up the maintenance calories are generally low key enough, the main energy source is fat. No need to eat that back.

The problem is today with our culture, there is very little daily activity to give much of a safe spread between maintenance and BMR level.

And that level of activity you are doing is probably right at the safe level, perhaps top of it. No need to eat that back.

The only problem is that if you selected too aggressive of a weight loss goal, MFP is more than happy to put your goal calories way under your BMR, unless the math makes it go under 1200, then for safety reasons they stop there.

This is why when I do numbers for people and they are high calorie diets, I tell them to only eat back to be well above BMR and closer to the true daily calorie.
You arent guaranteed to work out every day so if you rely on eating back training calories but for one reason or another you arent able to workout...now you are under BMR and possibly heading for trouble.

Create a deficit through working out not through starving!

Another point is most people dont even know what their TDEE is!
So they panic when they set calories to 1500 and they go over not realizing they expend 2600-3k calories a day.

the least complicated this process is the better!

Know your Big 3!
BMR
TDEE
Body Fat %!

Tinyminime

I found this article very informative: The truth about Starvation Mode - http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

heybales

I found this article very informative: The truth about Starvation Mode - http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

Yes, they talk about the study that was mentioned in posts above.

I always find it interesting that a major piece in their "semi-starvation diet" seems to be missed.

"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."

So they ate at 50% from their maintenance calories. So guys with a maintenance of 2500-3000 are eating at 1250-1500.
And that caused their BMR to lower by 40% below baseline.

So this is NOT even getting to the level of many on here happily reporting that they have trouble eating as high as 1200, their BMR was 1400 or 1500, and they exercise to net calories of 700-800.
That is 50% of their BMR - not even their maintenance calories as in the study.

So still not claiming starvation, but if these guys at 50% of maintenance, at the worst point in their diets, lowered their metabolism 40%, what happens to people that net calorie at 50% of their BMR, and maybe 70-80% of their maintenance.

Ugh. No wonder you touch one extra binge and the weight jumps up.

And in case someone with a 1400 BMR eating at 1200 and exercising out another 500 calories on a regular basis without replacement - a 40% drop in metabolism would be a loss of 560 calories every single day of free burn.

grinch031

I would suggest reading Jillian Michael's new metabolism book. In it she describes how she was a mess, her metabolism had slowed down, many of her hormone levels were way off.... she was always tired. She describes exercising hour upon hour at the gym and having trouble keeping her weight where she wanted it. Her solution was to start eating more of the right kinds of foods.... she also went organic to avoid toxins that were causing her body hormonal problems, and now she only exercises 3 to 5 hours a week, feels so much better, eats tons more food and is keeping off the weight. Food for thought!

I think the key point here is that jillian was always tired. Rarely do I hear posters here say they are eating 1200 calories a day, exercising like crazy, yet aways tired. The complaint is usually that they just aren't losing weight despite their efforts. I would agree with anyone that would say if you don't have the energy to fuel your workouts, then you should increase your calorie consumption. But I don't think there is a magic number like 1200 or that someone has to eat back their exercise calories. You don't need to eat so much if you have plenty of fat storage available. How small your caloric deficit should be has more to do with how lean you are.

MrsLVF

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:

First you should know how many calories are equal to a pound of body fat:1 Pound of Body Fat = 3500 calories
To lose 1 pound of body fat in a week, you would have to cut/burn 500 calories per day times 7 days. To lose this weight in a healthy, maintainable way combine lower caloric intake with exercise.
So to lose 1 pound of fat per week healthily:
Subtract 250 from your BMR. This is your daily intake of calories for weight loss.
Add enough exercise to burn 250 calories/day.
Together, this creates a negative balance of 500 calories per day, or 3500 per week.

To lose 2 lbs. of body fat per week, you would have to cut/burn 1000 calories per day times 7 days:

Subtract 500 from your BMR.
Add enough exercise to burn 500 calories/day.

It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

My1985Freckles

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:

First you should know how many calories are equal to a pound of body fat:1 Pound of Body Fat = 3500 calories
To lose 1 pound of body fat in a week, you would have to cut/burn 500 calories per day times 7 days. To lose this weight in a healthy, maintainable way combine lower caloric intake with exercise.
So to lose 1 pound of fat per week healthily:
Subtract 250 from your BMR. This is your daily intake of calories for weight loss.
Add enough exercise to burn 250 calories/day.
Together, this creates a negative balance of 500 calories per day, or 3500 per week.

To lose 2 lbs. of body fat per week, you would have to cut/burn 1000 calories per day times 7 days:

Subtract 500 from your BMR.
Add enough exercise to burn 500 calories/day.

It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

BMR? or TDEE?

Fit_Canuck

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:

First you should know how many calories are equal to a pound of body fat:1 Pound of Body Fat = 3500 calories
To lose 1 pound of body fat in a week, you would have to cut/burn 500 calories per day times 7 days. To lose this weight in a healthy, maintainable way combine lower caloric intake with exercise.
So to lose 1 pound of fat per week healthily:
Subtract 250 from your BMR. This is your daily intake of calories for weight loss.
Add enough exercise to burn 250 calories/day.
Together, this creates a negative balance of 500 calories per day, or 3500 per week.

To lose 2 lbs. of body fat per week, you would have to cut/burn 1000 calories per day times 7 days:

Subtract 500 from your BMR.
Add enough exercise to burn 500 calories/day.

It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

I think your beyond wrong on this and in also believe what you've posted here ( advocating 200 net calories a day ) is downright dangerous. I'm not sure you understood what the American College of Sports Medicine actually said. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood your post to say, eat 1200, burn 1000 which leaves you roughly 200 calories a day net. It's quite impossible and very unhealthy to try to run all your body's vital organs on only 200 calories a day.

I'm not trying to insult you but what you've just said is directly contrary to my doctor, my kinesiologist and my sports nutritionist. If your going to say that this is a fact please provide the actual documentation showing how you determined this.

While it is true that the American College of Sports Medicine said 500 calorie deficit a day is acceptable for weight loss, I don't believe they said that creating a 200 calorie a day net is healthy.

heybales

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:
It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

You might want to reread their recommendation, or provide a link.

That is not BMR, but maintenance, or TDEE perhaps.

Huge difference.

Just think for a moment of your body having 200 calories to provide life functions, as you suggest above, every day.

Then you should Google the meaning of BMR, because saying it that frequently in those contexts should have raised a huge red flag if there was an understanding what it meant.

Helloitsdan

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:

First you should know how many calories are equal to a pound of body fat:1 Pound of Body Fat = 3500 calories
To lose 1 pound of body fat in a week, you would have to cut/burn 500 calories per day times 7 days. To lose this weight in a healthy, maintainable way combine lower caloric intake with exercise.
So to lose 1 pound of fat per week healthily:
Subtract 250 from your BMR. This is your daily intake of calories for weight loss.
Add enough exercise to burn 250 calories/day.
Together, this creates a negative balance of 500 calories per day, or 3500 per week.

To lose 2 lbs. of body fat per week, you would have to cut/burn 1000 calories per day times 7 days:

Subtract 500 from your BMR.
Add enough exercise to burn 500 calories/day.

It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

Lol. Too bad it isnt really about 3500 cals to lose fat and 2500+ to gain muscle. This stuff would be easy!

Helloitsdan

I'll break it down!

BMR is Basal Metabolic Rate.
This is the amount of calories needed to provide "Adequate" nutrients for basic function of "vital" organs.
Vital organs are the ones that keep you living BTW.
Heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, brain etc....
By eating at BMR you are not even allowed to get out of bed.
As soon as you get up you now need more calories to continue providing nutrients to the vital organs.

Continuing on a VLCD that plays below BMR

From Feed the Muscle Burn The Fat

Page 27.
7 Reasons why you should stay away from very low calorie diets.
1. Very low calorie diets slow down your metabolic rate
2. Very low calorie diets make you lose muscle
3. Very low calorie diets increase activity of fat-storing enzymes and decrease the activity of fat burning enzymes
4. Very low calorie diets decrease output of thyroid hormone.
5. Very Low calorie dieting increases the chance of rebound weight gain
6. Very low calorie diets increase appetite and cravings.
7. Very low calorie diets decrease your energy and work capacity

This is where eating below BMR gets you!

FUN!!!
Party time fun!!!!
But im too tired and hungry and nobody wants to play with me because I eat below BMR.

froeschli

I would suggest reading Jillian Michael's new metabolism book. In it she describes how she was a mess, her metabolism had slowed down, many of her hormone levels were way off.... she was always tired. She describes exercising hour upon hour at the gym and having trouble keeping her weight where she wanted it. Her solution was to start eating more of the right kinds of foods.... she also went organic to avoid toxins that were causing her body hormonal problems, and now she only exercises 3 to 5 hours a week, feels so much better, eats tons more food and is keeping off the weight. Food for thought!

I think the key point here is that jillian was always tired. Rarely do I hear posters here say they are eating 1200 calories a day, exercising like crazy, yet always tired. The complaint is usually that they just aren't losing weight despite their efforts. I would agree with anyone that would say if you don't have the energy to fuel your workouts, then you should increase your calorie consumption. But I don't think there is a magic number like 1200 or that someone has to eat back their exercise calories. You don't need to eat so much if you have plenty of fat storage available. How small your caloric deficit should be has more to do with how lean you are.

ah but don't people think they ought to be tired exercising this much? i bet it doesn't even occur to them...

MrsLVF

But when I eat more i gain, that's how I gained. But anyway, you sound like an expert, what do you recommend for a female 5'2.5" cw 158 gw 130? Currently I'm eat around 1200 calories & do 60 min cardio 7 days a week, and lift girly free weights 4 days a week. I have lost 25 lbs so far(sw183) tried the eat more & gained back 10, swiched back to 1200 calories. & lost 12 since jan 1st but maybe I should just eat my burned calories back sine it works for everyone.

No age mentioned, so for 30 yrs old at current weight, your healthy estimated full burning BMR is 1486.

I'm sure by undercutting your BMR that much with diet and exercise, as soon as you gave it ANY extra food, it held on to it, probably had some muscle to repair.
A body with suppressed metabolism has to see that it is not just getting a much needed treat, but a real change of eating, to start going back up.

Sure it can happen. Could take 6 wks as in this case, and even during recovery lose 5 lbs of fat!

http://www.exrx.net/Questions/StarvationEffect.html

A similar case study was published by Jampolis (2004). A 51 year old patient complained of a 15 lb weight gain over the last year despite beginning a strenuous triathlon and marathon training program (2 hours per day, 5-6 days per week). A 3 day diet analysis estimated a daily intake of only 1000-1200 Calories. An indirect calorimetry revealed a resting metabolic rate of 950 Calories (28% below predicted for age, height, weight, and gender). After medications and medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and diabetes where ruled out, the final diagnosis was over-training and undereating. The following treatment was recommended:

Increase daily dietary intake by approximately 100 Calories per week to a goal of 1500 calories
32% protein; 35% carbohydrates; 33% fat
Consume 5-6 small meals per day
Small amounts of protein with each meal or snack
Choose high fiber starches
Select mono- and poly- unsaturated fats
Restrict consumption of starch with evening meals unless focused around training
Take daily multi-vitamin and mineral supplement
Perform whole body isometric resistance training 2 times per week

After 6 weeks the patient's resting metabolism increased 35% to 1282 Calories per day (only 2% below predicted). The patient also decreases percent fat from 37% to 34%, a loss of 5 lbs of body fat.

---

So her RMR went up over 300 calories. 2100 calories of free burn had been lost each week at the lowered BMR level.

Where is the rest of this women's information? All we have is age. No height or weight. We do not know what she did in prior years. She could have been eating 1000 calories of eating ice cream & cupcakes for all we know. Where is the complete study? And this is mathematically wrong. How do you increase intake by 100 calories per week to a goal of 1500 when she was eating between 1000-1200 to begin with?

And yes, i read the entire article l in the link you provided.
My Favorite part was when the person stated " I am not a registered dietitian"

http://www.eatstrong.com/newsletters_pdf/es_06summer.pdf (in this link shes 41) and calorie recommendations a\differ as well/..

My1985Freckles

How do you increase intake by 100 calories per week to a goal of 1500 when she was eating between 1000-1200 to begin with?

She's eating 1000 now. So next week she eats 1100 (you know 1000+100). The week after that she eats 1200. Next week 1300. Then 1400. Then finally 1500. It's as easy and mathematically possible as counting 1 2 3 4 5.

MrsLVF

How do you increase intake by 100 calories per week to a goal of 1500 when she was eating between 1000-1200 to begin with?

She's eating 1000 now. So next week she eats 1100 (you know 1000+100). The week after that she eats 1200. Next week 1300. Then 1400. Then finally 1500. It's as easy and mathematically possible as counting 1 2 3 4 5.

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. It's a 6 weeks study so i imagine the last 2 weeks she consumed the goal of 1500 calories consumed.
1500 calories of good food as listed in the study. So not just calories, but the manner in which she ate them were changed as well. smaller meals, all with protein, and some resistance training to build muscle. we all know muscle boosts metabolism. I'm sure she's still training for her triathlon, so you know this woman is burning more that 300 calories a day, thus putting her under that magic 1200 (net) calorie number, but she still lost weight. So why are we using this study as an example?

Helloitsdan

How do you increase intake by 100 calories per week to a goal of 1500 when she was eating between 1000-1200 to begin with?

She's eating 1000 now. So next week she eats 1100 (you know 1000+100). The week after that she eats 1200. Next week 1300. Then 1400. Then finally 1500. It's as easy and mathematically possible as counting 1 2 3 4 5.

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. It's a 6 weeks study so i imagine the last 2 weeks she consumed the goal of 1500 calories consumed.
1500 calories of good food as listed in the study. So not just calories, but the manner in which she ate them were changed as well. smaller meals, all with protein, and some resistance training to build muscle. we all know muscle boosts metabolism. I'm sure she's still training for her triathlon, so you know this woman is burning more that 300 calories a day, thus putting her under that magic 1200 (net) calorie number, but she still lost weight. So why are we using this study as an example?

Lol show of hands who thinks the 1200 calorie fail diet works?

MrsLVF

How do you increase intake by 100 calories per week to a goal of 1500 when she was eating between 1000-1200 to begin with?

She's eating 1000 now. So next week she eats 1100 (you know 1000+100). The week after that she eats 1200. Next week 1300. Then 1400. Then finally 1500. It's as easy and mathematically possible as counting 1 2 3 4 5.

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. It's a 6 weeks study so i imagine the last 2 weeks she consumed the goal of 1500 calories consumed.
1500 calories of good food as listed in the study. So not just calories, but the manner in which she ate them were changed as well. smaller meals, all with protein, and some resistance training to build muscle. we all know muscle boosts metabolism. I'm sure she's still training for her triathlon, so you know this woman is burning more that 300 calories a day, thus putting her under that magic 1200 (net) calorie number, but she still lost weight. So why are we using this study as an example?

Lol show of hands who thinks the 1200 calorie fail diet works?

LOL Consuming an average of 1200 calories has been working for me, and no muscle mass loss. It must be all that weight training, protein i have during my healthy mini meals & snacks. Or maybe it's because I'm a 5'2.5" woman over 40. bmr 1433.8 or my 60min of cardio a day.

What was your point?
Who said anything about eating under 1200 calories??? The woman in this study clearly has a net of under 1200 calories.

Mine is that who ever originally posted this to back their "don't have a net under 1200 calories" should have realized that this study promotes just that. Yes, they upped her calories, and completely changed the way, and quality of food she ate. They also ADDED strength training, thus building muscle to boost metabolism.Let's not forget her "strenuous triathlon and marathon training program" The study didn't say she stopped. I'm sure her net was under her BMR

Greater muscle mass...the reason men such as yourself can lose fat easier than women.