Starvation mode is a myth, so why do we keep saying it exist

mfpcopine

This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.

This.

The number of calories calculated for me by MFP seems to be too high, especially when one factors in the difficulty of correct accounting. As I've pointed out before, the calorie estimates on the labels are not always accurate, companies are allowed a margin of error of +/- 15 (or maybe it's 20)%. So even if you measure every single thing you eat you could still be off significantly. I'm recovering from an injury and cannot do heavy cardio so I've set my activity level as "sedentary."

In a week or two, I may try using Fitbit's calculation, which is around 1,000.

ninerbuff

Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").

Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.

In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.

And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.

Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).

This about covers it.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.

If we are to go by just testimonies, then yes it's BS, but Azdak is one that doesn't comment from anecdotal information. I agree with him on this because being in the actual business (like he is) where we deal with people on a day to day basis, we actually not only have to keep up with research, but also actually see what he has posted with many many clients.
I am daily bombarded with members of our Wellness center coming in and asking for help and when I sit down and evaluate them, much of what he has posted is true. Many members have issues with hormones they weren't aware of. Many have reduced activity because calorie deficit made them feel weaker.
That's not to say what you're stating isn't relevant either because I also come across the valid issues you brought up. I do have members that totally overestimate their burn and eat much more than they think.
All in all, there is no one way with the exception that we know that to lose weight, a calorie deficit has to be the focus. How much and for how long will always be debated.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

grinch031

Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").

Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.

In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.

And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.

Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).

This about covers it.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.

If we are to go by just testimonies, then yes it's BS, but Azdak is one that doesn't comment from anecdotal information. I agree with him on this because being in the actual business (like he is) where we deal with people on a day to day basis, we actually not only have to keep up with research, but also actually see what he has posted with many many clients.
I am daily bombarded with members of our Wellness center coming in and asking for help and when I sit down and evaluate them, much of what he has posted is true. Many members have issues with hormones they weren't aware of. Many have reduced activity because calorie deficit made them feel weaker.
That's not to say what you're stating isn't relevant either because I also come across the valid issues you brought up. I do have members that totally overestimate their burn and eat much more than they think.
All in all, there is no one way with the exception that we know that to lose weight, a calorie deficit has to be the focus. How much and for how long will always be debated.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I actually believe that hormones play a HUGE role in determining whether someone is lean or obese. But its not by slowing down their BMR or allowing them to do endless amount of work without burning any calories. Basically hormones make you overeat and they make you lethargic. When someone is eating 1200 calories/day and working out for 5 hours a week and not losing weight, then they are defying the laws of physics. If they had hormone problems, then they are either stuffing their faces with food and not logging it, or they are sitting home because they are too tired to go to the gym.

veggieshark

This is very informative, I'll keep this in mind. I'm recovering from anorexia right now. Even now I restrict to 1000-1100 calories because of my huge fears I'm trying desperately to get over. I've been worried that even though I'm not eating 200 calories per day anymore that my body still isn't getting enough and is going to revert to starvation mode. I'm still trying to lose weight healthily. But you said it happens to women with <10% body fat. How is body fat measured? I'm fairly certain I have far less than that, being in a technically anorexic weight range for my height. I want to know what my percentage is...

Azdak

Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").

Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.

In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.

And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.

Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).

This about covers it.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.

????? Curious choice of words since nothing you wrote is related to anything that I wrote.

What you are describing (accurately) is a different part of the discussion than what I was addressing.

grinch031

Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").

Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.

In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.

And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.

Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).

This about covers it.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.

????? Curious choice of words since nothing you wrote is related to anything that I wrote.

What you are describing (accurately) is a different part of the discussion than what I was addressing.

I think it did relate. You're saying its mainly individual variances, and I think its mainly inability to properly account for caloric intake and expenditure.

Azdak

Not everyone responds to a calorie deficit the same way, which is why you have such variances in anecdotal evidence (on top of the fact that we people cite their own experiences, they are often wrong about what exactly "caused" their "effect").

Some people show little or no decrease in resting metabolism, others can see a notable decrease.

In addition, it has been shown that, people who reduce their calories often reduce their overall activity level. This also occurs when people begin exercise programs. Those people end up offsetting much of the effect of their calorie deficits because they decrease energy output.

And lastly, some people take a long time to effectively respond to a diet/exercise program--usually due to their overall hormonal response.

Because of these and other variables, the whole topic of "starvation mode" usually turns into an elaborate exercise in tail-chasing (which unfortunately doesn't burn as many calories as you'd think.).

This about covers it.


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

This is bullcrap though because the testimonies of MFP members cannot be repeated in metabolic ward studies. Yes there is a decrease in EE when calories are dropped, but not as quickly and to the extent people here claim. There are however studies that prove that most people are incapable of correctly accounting for calories ingested or burned. So people who think they are eating 1200 calories are probably eating more like 2000 calories. People who think they are burning 1000 calories/hour on an elliptical are burning more like 500 calories. And also people who have cheat days might not account for the possibility that they are undoing the progress made during the week.

????? Curious choice of words since nothing you wrote is related to anything that I wrote.

What you are describing (accurately) is a different part of the discussion than what I was addressing.

I think it did relate. You're saying its mainly individual variances, and I think its mainly inability to properly account for caloric intake and expenditure.

No, I said individual variances contribute to the confusion and to the varied responses that people experience. Because they are unaware of the variances, people insist their experience is "true" and is the standard for others. That's just one reason of several for the confusion that people have about this subject.

Another one is in the area that you described--i.e. (and I hope I characterize your words correctly) that people tend to be poor record-keepers/estimators and thus what they perceived as "slowed metabolic rate/starvation mode" is actually unrealized increased eating.

A third reason is the fact that, over time, people subconsciously tend to fall into a new balance in their TEE. It's often a combination of small increases in food intake + small decreases in casual activity + getting into a habitual exercise routine + decreased REE due to decreased mass (weight).

And a fourth reason is that a combination of large-calorie deficits and high volumes of intense exercise can lead to chronically increased levels of stress hormones that inhibit fat loss.

A combination of these reasons is likely the culprit in about 95% of the cases in which people say they are in "starvation mode" which is why I never use the term (except to say that it's mis- and overused).

ninerbuff

I actually believe that hormones play a HUGE role in determining whether someone is lean or obese. But its not by slowing down their BMR or allowing them to do endless amount of work without burning any calories. Basically hormones make you overeat and they make you lethargic. When someone is eating 1200 calories/day and working out for 5 hours a week and not losing weight, then they are defying the laws of physics. If they had hormone problems, then they are either stuffing their faces with food and not logging it, or they are sitting home because they are too tired to go to the gym.

Have to partially disagree here. Insulin resistance has a direct effect on metabolism due to how fat is stored and utilized. Effects on T3 and T4 also have a direct effect on metabolism.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

yarwell

This is very informative, I'll keep this in mind. I'm recovering from anorexia right now. Even now I restrict to 1000-1100 calories because of my huge fears I'm trying desperately to get over. I've been worried that even though I'm not eating 200 calories per day anymore that my body still isn't getting enough and is going to revert to starvation mode. I'm still trying to lose weight healthily. But you said it happens to women with <10% body fat. How is body fat measured? I'm fairly certain I have far less than that, being in a technically anorexic weight range for my height. I want to know what my percentage is...

118 lbs and 5'-9" ? That's low body fat and BMI of 17.4

http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/body-fat-percentage-calculator for a calculator

From a quick squint at your diary you need to get some more protein into your diet to build yourself up.

Azdak

This is very informative, I'll keep this in mind. I'm recovering from anorexia right now. Even now I restrict to 1000-1100 calories because of my huge fears I'm trying desperately to get over. I've been worried that even though I'm not eating 200 calories per day anymore that my body still isn't getting enough and is going to revert to starvation mode. I'm still trying to lose weight healthily. But you said it happens to women with <10% body fat. How is body fat measured? I'm fairly certain I have far less than that, being in a technically anorexic weight range for my height. I want to know what my percentage is...

118 lbs and 5'-9" ? That's low body fat and BMI of 17.4

http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/body-fat-percentage-calculator for a calculator

From a quick squint at your diary you need to get some more protein into your diet to build yourself up.

Not necessarily. Those numbers jump out because there is someone in our center who started with those exact measurements--her body fat is about 27%. She looks pretty normal, a little on the thin side (although not as much as you'd think). She eats normally, follows a typical recreational workout program, lifts weights--she's just built like a bird.

coconutbuNZ

You guys are confusing the hell out of me! Starvation mode is real. Starvation mode is a myth. What is the truth?!

yarwell

You guys are confusing the hell out of me! Starvation mode is real. Starvation mode is a myth. What is the truth?!

There is a measurable metabolic rate reduction in response to reduced calorie intake, for example see http://www.ajcn.org/content/72/5/1088/F1.expansion.html

and there is a reduction in response to weight loss too, as there is less mass involved.

So you may see a smaller weight loss effect than the initial calorie reduction implies.

Where it becomes a myth is when people write nonsense like "Don't eat less than your BMR" or "your body will hold on to everything if you don't eat enough" etc etc etc. These are the myths.

I doubt anyone disagrees that there's a reduction in metabolic rate as a result of weight loss, and most folks will accept there may be a reduction due to calorie restriction which may be higher at larger deficits.

Fit_Canuck

You guys are confusing the hell out of me! Starvation mode is real. Starvation mode is a myth. What is the truth?!

Metabolic Adaptation ( Starvation ) is very much a real body mechanism regardless of how many people chose to believe it isn't, just because you can't visually see a body function doesn't mean it's not actually happening. The human body is adaptive and will protect itself against harm as much as possible and yes eating too few nutrients and calories is considered harm to a body that thrives on it.

jbsangel

words

saturnine15

I chose not to believe it until I just wasn't functioning properly. I am classified as obese as I am typing this and 1200 (not eating exercise calories back) was working for about 2 months when I was doing 30 minutes of cardio a day. I lost 10 pounds a month. Then I kicked it up to 60 mins cardio on some days and then yoga/pilates and 45 minutes of cardio on others. My weight loss stalled, the thought of food was disgusting, and I had an awful spacey feeling. I had a hard time accepting that more food = better weight loss. Actually Wednesday this week I hit the wall. I had eaten 1300 calories in the day - 3 meals 2 snacks, and was netting only about 900. I felt like a zombie. I am now going to eat the amount I am supposed to.

izzyissy

Maybe this is why I am not losing weight. I am 4'7, 53 yrs old and 40lbs over weight. I have my calories set to 1200. And sometimes I eat my exercise calories back. Sometimes I only net 900 or 1000. If I exercise, I should eat all those calories to net 1200. Right??? If someone wants to look at my journal and help me, please friend me.. Thanks

Azdak

You guys are confusing the hell out of me! Starvation mode is real. Starvation mode is a myth. What is the truth?!

Metabolic Adaptation ( Starvation ) is very much a real body mechanism regardless of how many people chose to believe it isn't, just because you can't visually see a body function doesn't mean it's not actually happening. The human body is adaptive and will protect itself against harm as much as possible and yes eating too few nutrients and calories is considered harm to a body that thrives on it.

Not a question of choice, but a question of science (and semantics).

sparkle126

@Pu_239 yes i am doing a lot better...i am actually eating about 1700 cals a day now haha and i feel much more energetic than ever! of course i have my days where i feel obese but its so much better than those horrid restrictive days where i was utterly miserable. lol when i say `obese` i mean that lightly...i know i am not obese but its hard to totally get rid of those thoughts, you know?

do u lose weight on 1700 am on 1200 and now not losing any x

Sarauk2sf

This is very informative, I'll keep this in mind. I'm recovering from anorexia right now. Even now I restrict to 1000-1100 calories because of my huge fears I'm trying desperately to get over. I've been worried that even though I'm not eating 200 calories per day anymore that my body still isn't getting enough and is going to revert to starvation mode. I'm still trying to lose weight healthily. But you said it happens to women with <10% body fat. How is body fat measured? I'm fairly certain I have far less than that, being in a technically anorexic weight range for my height. I want to know what my percentage is...

Here is a pretty good link tht takes you through the methods of body fat measurment methods:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56830

crisanderson27

I have seen a lot of studies saying it is a myth also. Some people fast two times a week for weight loss with no reverse effects. I am not saying anyone should fast but I think at my weight with all my stores fat, if I am 100-200 calories under I am not going to go into starvation mode. There are no fat starving people out there. Watching the show "Survivor" even where their calories are drastically reduced- those people lose a lot of weight! They do not hold onto their weight because of starvation mode. I am no expert. I might be wrong, but that is my gut feeling based on what i have read.

I fast regularly...and its quite healthy. What people don't realize is with intermittent fasting, your calories still average out to a healthy deficit for a weeks time. We don't starve ourselves by any means...on the contrary...we usually subscribe to the 'higher intake' philosophy.

terrie_exercise_mom

If I'm not hungry, I'm not going to eat. Plain and simple. Eating when you are not hungry is a big no no, so if I'm below whatever calorie goal I may be pursuing... I don't really give a flying f**k.

Hunger is a hormonal response that can be trained. If you consistently under eat, you will train your body to not be hungry.

Ya, but that hasn't happened to me. I've been doing quite fine the past year. I'm healthy and happy. I get that there are people who starve themselves, but people need to quit acting like they know everything when it comes to not eating below the magical number of 1200.

You are young. There are many things that haven't happened to you yet. There are many people who do many things that are not really very good for themselves and they remain "fine". for a while.

Are you serious? Age has nothing to do with it. I just turned 41 today....always eat under 300 calories and still lose weight!!! Sorry but I have ate like this since I was fifteen and only put on weight twice (once when I was pg and then last year as I HAD to gain weight to have surgery). I really think people just like to use this starvation moode stuff as an excuse! Tired of ppl saying you have to eat such an amount of cals when I am proof you don't. I should not even respond to this nonsence!!!

Lozze

.always eat under 300 calories and still lose weight!!!

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Eating under 500 calories a day is considered anorexic.

I am now at the point with these debates that I don't care. Want to starve yourself? Go ahead. It's your body. You'll be the one with the body that you provide yourself.

I was morbidily obese for a LONG time. I ended up with the body I provided myself. I hated it. I'm now getting the body I actually want by eating in a healthy manner. And I'm losing weight consistently. By eating 1600 calories a day. With no plans to change that. I exercise, I eat a ton of (mostly) healthy food. My bloodwork is perfect. So why starve myself unnecessarily?

Underrating is just as dangerous as overeating. Neither is a healthy option.

terrie_exercise_mom

.always eat under 300 calories and still lose weight!!!

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Eating under 500 calories a day is considered anorexic.

I am now at the point with these debates that I don't care. Want to starve yourself? Go ahead. It's your body. You'll be the one with the body that you provide yourself.

I was morbidily obese for a LONG time. I ended up with the body I provided myself. I hated it. I'm now getting the body I actually want by eating in a healthy manner. And I'm losing weight consistently. By eating 1600 calories a day. With no plans to change that. I exercise, I eat a ton of (mostly) healthy food. My bloodwork is perfect. So why starve myself unnecessarily?

Underrating is just as dangerous as overeating. Neither is a healthy option.

That is what I am trying to get across. Neither is the better choice so ppl should al least stop saying the skinny ones just want to be lazy and not exercise. I exercise mo less than 900 cals a day. I am far from lazy. I just plain and simple don't eat a lot of food. Never have.

Lozze

Neither is the better choice so ppl should al least stop saying the skinny ones just want to be lazy and not exercise

No-one's saying either is the better choice. (and when I'm talking about overeating I'm talking at people eating 3000+ calories a day which 95% of the time is overeating for that person)

Under eating? Bad.

Over eating? Bad.

Neither are good. And yes what you are eating (or not eating) is very, very bad.

ElizaRoche

If I'm not hungry, I'm not going to eat. Plain and simple. Eating when you are not hungry is a big no no, so if I'm below whatever calorie goal I may be pursuing... I don't really give a flying f**k.

im the same way!.... thats why I keep my diary private, I eat below the 1200.. and i never use my excercise bonus, I bet I would get tons of messages saying I have to eat more blah blah blah.. NOT gonna happen!
If im not hungry, im not eating. Period.

cimonroe

Seriously, stop it.

Starvation mode ("Starvation response" if you want to research it) only exists for males with 5% body fat or less and females with 10% body fat or less.

A link with cited sources:

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

Via Wiki:

Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low caloric intake levels. During short periods of caloric abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has DEPLETED ITS BODY FAT and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source.

(emphasis mine).

You should eat a caloric deficit that's comfortable for you regardless of the numbers.

can you seriously stop encouraging people to become unhealthy eaters. :noway:

I second this. If you want, there are "studies" that will disprove or prove a wide array of arguments. I would consider the credibility of your source.

cimonroe

Here is my experience of starvation mode.
I was anorexic for 3 years. Some days I ate an orange and a piece of toast and thought I was wonderful for it (more fool me)

In the short term (1-6) months eating under 800 or 900 cals a day:
Makes you irritable, grumpy and a pain to live with
Your breath will smell
Your face skin will dry out and/or you'll get spots
You will feel nauseous with hunger
You stomach will make noise all the time
You will lose hell of a lot of weight (up to 7lbs a week)

6 -12 months
Your period will stop
Your appetite will be gone.
You will have trained yourself to go without food.
Your energy will be non-existant
Your circle of friends will have whittered away as you fall out or cut out all of them in turn because of your eating
Your family will be in a panic about your appearance
Your weight loss will slow down to about 1lb a week (or less)
Your hair will thin

12-18 months
You are really ill now
You panic about your weight loss and drop down to 300-500 cals because some other anorexic on an internet forum said this worked for her
The other Anas on the forums are your only "friends" now
All your muscle has gone
The skin all over your body and your face will be in a shocking condition
You are cold all the time, a horrible soul sucking coldness that seems to come from within
Organ damage has started
Your hair will stop growing and may start to fall out

18 months +
As well as everything else above
The symptoms of mental illness appear (paranoia being the most common)
Irreversible organ damage may have started
Lumps of your hair will fall out leaving you with bald patches

After recovery:
Your body clings on to every calories like a dying man to a shipwreak and you put on weight. You think dropping back to your previous habits will lose it - it doesn't. What do you do then?

Those are the consequences of surviving on anorexic portions of food. Those are the ones I saw myself and others in real-life support groups go through. Some lived, some died. Those that lived took years to get over the consequences of our eating habits. That is the reality of eating half what a woman needs to survive on.

Do you know that anyone can edit wikipedia? Do you really want to ruin your life because someone thought it would be clever to justify their lifestyle choices by lying about the consequences of eating like this?

Is this really the path you want to go down? I am begging you now to stop before it is too late and you embark on a lifestyle that negatively shapes the rest of your life.

Right now, I am now losing 2lbs a week eating around about 2000 cals a day. I am happy, healthy and energetic.

Be smart before it is too late for you.

That was one of the best responses I've seen on MFP. Well done.

I second this!! I didn't even consider anorexia when trying to explain why starvation is not healthy. Excellent

Sarauk2sf

.always eat under 300 calories and still lose weight!!!

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Eating under 500 calories a day is considered anorexic.

I am now at the point with these debates that I don't care. Want to starve yourself? Go ahead. It's your body. You'll be the one with the body that you provide yourself.

I was morbidily obese for a LONG time. I ended up with the body I provided myself. I hated it. I'm now getting the body I actually want by eating in a healthy manner. And I'm losing weight consistently. By eating 1600 calories a day. With no plans to change that. I exercise, I eat a ton of (mostly) healthy food. My bloodwork is perfect. So why starve myself unnecessarily?

Underrating is just as dangerous as overeating. Neither is a healthy option.

That is what I am trying to get across. Neither is the better choice so ppl should al least stop saying the skinny ones just want to be lazy and not exercise. I exercise mo less than 900 cals a day. I am far from lazy. I just plain and simple don't eat a lot of food. Never have.

Where exactly did you see people calling folks (let alone the 'skinny ones, as you put it) that did not exercise lazy. I may have missed one in the thread, but it certainly was not what was being said in the majority of this thread.

Also, she said undereating and overeating were bad - is this what you were trying to get across *confused*?

propskat

OK so I didn't read every single post on this thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else has already said.
I'm not sure the OP is totally wrong, but I feel like everyone is totally missing the point here.
1200 is a number, as is 600, 1800, whatever. But your body NEEDS MORE THAN JUST CALORIES! The reason there's a 1200 cal. a day 'minimum' is because that's what's been shown to provide adquate nutrition!
At minimum you need Carbs, Fat, and Protein. But also, you need fiber for digestion, you need vitamin D for good bones and neuromuscular function, water for, well, everything, Iron for your blood, etc. etc. etc.

So maybe starvation mode isn't just tied to lack of calories, but lack of adequate nutrition. I mean, if you're stranded on an iceberg, you could absolutely consume 1200 calories worth of penguin and baby polar bears a day, but it isn't a nutritionally sound diet.

ninerbuff

Are you serious? Age has nothing to do with it. I just turned 41 today....always eat under 300 calories and still lose weight!!! Sorry but I have ate like this since I was fifteen and only put on weight twice (once when I was pg and then last year as I HAD to gain weight to have surgery). I really think people just like to use this starvation moode stuff as an excuse! Tired of ppl saying you have to eat such an amount of cals when I am proof you don't. I should not even respond to this nonsence!!!

Why would you have to gain weight to have surgery? Maybe because you were deemed underweight and posed a risk?

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition