Starvation Mode
Options
Replies
-
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v9/n11s/full/oby2001133a.html
"Although 70% of the sample reported adopting one of these behaviors over 4 years, the behaviors were maintained for a median duration of only 18 to 40 weeks (Figure 1). Despite this fact, subjects engaging in calorie reduction for 48 weeks over a 4-year period achieved a cumulative weight loss of 2.8 lb, whereas behaviors involving more drastic changes in energy intake were less successful."
"A different approach used to achieve dietary energy reduction is based on prescribing a fixed energy deficit based on estimated (or measured) energy expenditure. Because reported energy intakes, even with expert dietitians, are prone to under-reporting and under-recording (20) (21), energy requirements are calculated from equations based on weight, age, and sex (22). A diet providing a 500- to 600-kcal/d deficit, but balanced in macronutrients, can be constructed; it can be predicted that, if followed, weight loss of 0.5 kg/wk should ensue. One study in a hospital dietetic clinic, not randomized, showed greater weight loss with such a prescribed 600-kcal deficit diet compared with a conventional low-calorie (1200 kcal/d) diet (23). This study has been influential in the United Kingdom and in the design of low-calorie diets as adjunct to pharmacotherapy in clinical trials (24)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17539863
"Weight loss was significant in both groups, but was greater in Group A2 than in Group A1. There was no significant correlation between weight loss and energy deficit. In a selected group of patients from Group A2 who were prescribed energy intake close to the recommended deficit of 500 kcal, weight loss was found to be significantly greater (P<0.05) when compared to the weight loss in Group A1."
http://www.ajcn.org/content/85/2/346.full
"The universally recognized but little studied phenomenon of low efficacy of LCD weight loss led us to look for possible underlying mechanisms. We examined 2 mechanisms, improved FEA and energetic adaptation to under-feeding. A third potential mechanism, low adherence to the prescribed energy deficit, was the default selection that was based on deductive logic after analysis of the first 2 mechanisms. Our findings, here formulated on the surprisingly limited available literature, identify low patient adherence to the prescribed energy deficit as the main basis for the modest weight loss of LCDs."
http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/4/906.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11430776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054213
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17260010
Some light reading for those who are bored...0 -
It is used as a scare tactic. Nothing more. I don't even bother completing my daily log as it gives me the annoying message every time. If starvation mode as it is used on this board existed then you are correct, gastric bypass would not work and anorexics would not be under weight. I am not making fun of anyone, especially those with and ED. I'm saying that if starvation mode worked as "advertised" then it would not be an issue.
BTW - In 6 months I have only twice consumed more than 1,200 calories and I have lost over 85lbs, lost almost no muscle mass, and increased me HDL (good cholesterol). This calorie amount was recommend by both my MD and nutritionist who said that women can lose weight perfectly healthy on 1,200 per day. I defer to their judgement over a website.
THIS...
My doctor flat out told me "Starvation mode? You know somalia thats starvation mode..eat sensibly and get off your *kitten*"0 -
starvation mode for me its a huge myth.... Ok, lets accept the fact that eating 500 calories everyday would be dangerous for your body, cause you are not getting enough nutrients/protein/vitamins/calcium etc...
But no way you would enter a starvation mode, or, explain anorexia to me, those girls barely eat 500 cal a day, and they keep losing weight.
I normally eat 900-1100 a day (ive never gone over my daily 1200), and look, 37 lbs less!.. And Im never hungry, i feel satified with what I eat, nothing in this world would change my mind about it. Maybe if i was eating the 900-1100 and i was with the 200 lbs i had before, i would believe it, but not when im a few pounds away from the 150s.
So again , that starvation mode is BS for me.. IMO
Halleluja!0 -
The Fat to Fit Radio site has the best weight loss advice I've ever seen. Eat like a thin person, and you will eventually become that thin person. Figure out your BMR, eat above it, but still at a deficit, and KEEP eating like that. When you get close to your goal weight, weight loss will stall, and then you can drop your caloric intake by 200-300 calories. It may take a year or more to get the weight off, but it will come off. Your body uses what it needs, sheds the rest, and finds equilibrium. Trust your body. Listen to the cues it gives you. If you're hungry, eat. If you're not, don't force yourself. Drink plenty of water. If you are craving something specific, it's likely not true hunger. If you feel light-headed and have that "hollow" feeling in the back of your throat, it's true hunger. I also strongly believe that 1200 should be the bare minimum for a very lean person. People like me with a good amount of weight to lose (50 lbs. or more) need to eat above their BMR. Your body will find its balance, even if it takes some time.
I have been following this advice and shedding weight with very little effort. I also feel better than I have in years. I've been overweight for so many years that I don't mind if it takes me a year or more to lose it; it will be worth it, and I will be healthy. I highly recommend that site, by the way!0 -
It is used as a scare tactic. Nothing more. I don't even bother completing my daily log as it gives me the annoying message every time. If starvation mode as it is used on this board existed then you are correct, gastric bypass would not work and anorexics would not be under weight. I am not making fun of anyone, especially those with and ED. I'm saying that if starvation mode worked as "advertised" then it would not be an issue.
BTW - In 6 months I have only twice consumed more than 1,200 calories and I have lost over 85lbs, lost almost no muscle mass, and increased me HDL (good cholesterol). This calorie amount was recommend by both my MD and nutritionist who said that women can lose weight perfectly healthy on 1,200 per day. I defer to their judgement over a website.
THIS...
My doctor flat out told me "Starvation mode? You know somalia thats starvation mode..eat sensibly and get off your *kitten*"
No, that's starvation and an entirely different thing to what people are talking about here. People here are talking about metabolic slowdown and catabolism as a result of extreme calorie restriction and just use an unfortunate name that people zero in on, rather than the actual effects and causes.0 -
It is used as a scare tactic. Nothing more. I don't even bother completing my daily log as it gives me the annoying message every time. If starvation mode as it is used on this board existed then you are correct, gastric bypass would not work and anorexics would not be under weight. I am not making fun of anyone, especially those with and ED. I'm saying that if starvation mode worked as "advertised" then it would not be an issue.
BTW - In 6 months I have only twice consumed more than 1,200 calories and I have lost over 85lbs, lost almost no muscle mass, and increased me HDL (good cholesterol). This calorie amount was recommend by both my MD and nutritionist who said that women can lose weight perfectly healthy on 1,200 per day. I defer to their judgement over a website.
THIS...
My doctor flat out told me "Starvation mode? You know somalia thats starvation mode..eat sensibly and get off your *kitten*"
No, that's starvation and an entirely different thing to what people are talking about here. People here are talking about metabolic slowdown and catabolism as a result of extreme calorie restriction and just use an unfortunate name that people zero in on, rather than the actual effects and causes.
I think the point my doc was trying to drive home, was its okay to restrict your calories as long as its being done sensibly, but more importantly make sure your moving doing something.
I always say do whats best for your body...but the eat more to lose more crowd I have witnessed myself in the gym has the tendency to stuff their faces all day full of crap then they want to sit on the treadmill for 2 hours trying to burn it up...again this an extreme on the other side probably not the norm.0 -
And have you ever heard of Goodwin's Law?
Nope. Is it like Godwin's Law ?
It should be pretty obvious - yes that was a typo. *Slow clap for noticing*0 -
..but the eat more to lose more crowd I have witnessed myself in the gym has the tendency to stuff their faces all day full of crap then they want to sit on the treadmill for 2 hours trying to burn it up...again this an extreme on the other side probably not the norm.
It's hard to find ppl in the gym who are actually doing it the right way.
Certain things to keep in mind.
1) Eat at Maintenance and create a caloric deficit by working out is optimal for a sustainable "diet" or lifestyle.
My method is using the Fat 2 Fit site for optimal numbers.
Fat 2 Fit gives 20% below TDEE from info about Age, height, weight, body fat and activity.
Use cardiovascular work if you have CV issues and not to burn fat.
CV work offers no afterburn and causes too much stress on the system.
Weight lifting or HIIT is the optimal method for fat burn and maintaining lean mass or in some cases building it.
Unless you are Obese II or III or genetic superior you cannot build lean mass on a deficit.
2) Restricting calories then working out for sustained periods of time have shown to have more catabolic effects on lean mass.
This is pointed to the people who are working out 5-7 days a week or twice a day.
The human body can only burn so much fat in a day before hormonal switches start using lean mass for fuel.
The best long lasting results would be for people to embrace proper nutrition first, rest well and recover and workout 2-4 times a week for 20-60 mins a session.
My point is you need to eat smart and move smart to lose and keep off weight.
I have a feeling that if you were to restrict calories 40-50% Below TDEE like some of us are, at some point the diminishing returns will add up resulting in a plateau or worse.0 -
..but the eat more to lose more crowd I have witnessed myself in the gym has the tendency to stuff their faces all day full of crap then they want to sit on the treadmill for 2 hours trying to burn it up...again this an extreme on the other side probably not the norm.
It's hard to find ppl in the gym who are actually doing it the right way.
Certain things to keep in mind.
1) Eat at Maintenance and create a caloric deficit by working out is optimal for a sustainable "diet" or lifestyle.
My method is using the Fat 2 Fit site for optimal numbers.
Fat 2 Fit gives 20% below TDEE from info about Age, height, weight, body fat and activity.
Use cardiovascular work if you have CV issues and not to burn fat.
CV work offers no afterburn and causes too much stress on the system.
Weight lifting or HIIT is the optimal method for fat burn and maintaining lean mass or in some cases building it.
Unless you are Obese II or III or genetic superior you cannot build lean mass on a deficit.
2) Restricting calories then working out for sustained periods of time have shown to have more catabolic effects on lean mass.
This is pointed to the people who are working out 5-7 days a week or twice a day.
The human body can only burn so much fat in a day before hormonal switches start using lean mass for fuel.
The best long lasting results would be for people to embrace proper nutrition first, rest well and recover and workout 2-4 times a week for 20-60 mins a session.
My point is you need to eat smart and move smart to lose and keep off weight.
I have a feeling that if you were to restrict calories 40-50% Below TDEE like some of us are, at some point the diminishing returns will add up resulting in a plateau or worse.
Freaking amen.
This should be the ONLY post in this entire thread...seriously.0 -
..but the eat more to lose more crowd I have witnessed myself in the gym has the tendency to stuff their faces all day full of crap then they want to sit on the treadmill for 2 hours trying to burn it up...again this an extreme on the other side probably not the norm.
It's hard to find ppl in the gym who are actually doing it the right way.
Certain things to keep in mind.
1) Eat at Maintenance and create a caloric deficit by working out is optimal for a sustainable "diet" or lifestyle.
My method is using the Fat 2 Fit site for optimal numbers.
Fat 2 Fit gives 20% below TDEE from info about Age, height, weight, body fat and activity.
Use cardiovascular work if you have CV issues and not to burn fat.
CV work offers no afterburn and causes too much stress on the system.
Weight lifting or HIIT is the optimal method for fat burn and maintaining lean mass or in some cases building it.
Unless you are Obese II or III or genetic superior you cannot build lean mass on a deficit.
2) Restricting calories then working out for sustained periods of time have shown to have more catabolic effects on lean mass.
This is pointed to the people who are working out 5-7 days a week or twice a day.
The human body can only burn so much fat in a day before hormonal switches start using lean mass for fuel.
The best long lasting results would be for people to embrace proper nutrition first, rest well and recover and workout 2-4 times a week for 20-60 mins a session.
My point is you need to eat smart and move smart to lose and keep off weight.
I have a feeling that if you were to restrict calories 40-50% Below TDEE like some of us are, at some point the diminishing returns will add up resulting in a plateau or worse.
Freaking amen.
This should be the ONLY post in this entire thread...seriously.
Or we can overthink everything and stay fat?
=D0 -
I agree!! People keep referring to anorexics as their "proof" that you can eat too little and still lose weight. DUH!! Of course you can. The problem is that once your body goes into starvation mode, it takes the nutrients and protein from wherever it can. It is an unbalanced way to lose weight. Most women are probably fine on 1200 a day...just don't starve yourselves and keep up a balanced diet.0
-
Just a suggestion to the folks who don't get enough calories in their day...If by the end of the day if I feel like I may have really shorted myself, I just have a glass of skim milk and a handful of almonds. It doesn't make me feel overly full and its several hundred calories added.0
-
Just a suggestion to the folks who don't get enough calories in their day...If by the end of the day if I feel like I may have really shorted myself, I just have a glass of skim milk and a handful of almonds. It doesn't make me feel overly full and its several hundred calories added.
Swap the skim for whole milk and you'll really be in business!0 -
I've read all nine pages on this thread, read most of the articles everyone on both sides links to, and I think I'm even more confused about this whole BMR/calories relationship than I was when I started
I have an appointment with a nutritionist in July, but basically, here's what I'm confused about:
MFP says that I have to net 1200 calories a day to lose 2 lbs per week, and that's what it recommends. But it ALSO says that my BMR is about 1590. Counting calories and watching portion size, I usually net between 1100-1500 calories a day. The days I eat closer to 1500 calories, regardless of whether or not I exercise, regardless of what I eat, are the only days I'm not hungry all day. The days I stick to 1200 or go just under, I'm hungry all day and have low energy. But that's what MFP is recommending.
So I don't get it. Is MFP telling me I need to net 1590 calories a day, or 1200? That is, do you have to net the calories of your BMR or below that to lose weight healthfully? I hope that makes sense. If anyone has some useful links, books or other resources, I'd appreciate it.0 -
I've read all nine pages on this thread, read most of the articles everyone on both sides links to, and I think I'm even more confused about this whole BMR/calories relationship than I was when I started I have an appointment with a nutritionist in July, but basically, here's what I'm confused about:
MFP says that I have to net 1200 calories a day to lose 2 lbs per week, and that's what it recommends. But it ALSO says that my BMR is about 1590. Counting calories and watching portion size, I usually net between 1100-1500 calories a day. The days I eat closer to 1500 calories, regardless of whether or not I exercise, regardless of what I eat, are the only days I'm not hungry all day. The days I stick to 1200 or go just under, I'm hungry all day and have low energy. But that's what MFP is recommending.
So I don't get it. Is MFP telling me I need to net 1590 calories a day, or 1200? That is, do you have to net the calories of your BMR or below that to lose weight healthfully? I hope that makes sense. If anyone has some useful links, books or other resources, I'd appreciate it.
Are you set to lose 2lb/week? If so, that means that MFP has subtracted 1000 calories off of your TDEE. If TDEE minus 1000 calories came out to less than 1200, it enforces a mandatory minimum of 1200. SO, If you chose sedentary, your multiplier is 1.2, so
1590 x 1.2 = 1908 (TDEE)
1908-1000 = 908 (calorie limit to lose 2 lb/week)
908 is rounded to 1200 because of minimum limit.
Based on that, you can see that 2 lb/week is too high of a weekly weight loss goal for you. Consider a lower weekly goal, which will be more comfortable, and much more likely to maintain long term.0 -
i honestly couldn't eat 1200 cal a day id feel like i was putting on weight. my body has plenty stored away to eat it will be fine lol.0
-
I agree with you all...I eat about 1250 calories a day and I have lost about 80 pounds now...Nothing is wrong with me...I'm full and it works for me..I think it's just to scare you:) Do what makes you comfortable, and what works for you:)0
-
Are you set to lose 2lb/week? If so, that means that MFP has subtracted 1000 calories off of your TDEE. If TDEE minus 1000 calories came out to less than 1200, it enforces a mandatory minimum of 1200. SO, If you chose sedentary, your multiplier is 1.2, so
1590 x 1.2 = 1908 (TDEE)
1908-1000 = 908 (calorie limit to lose 2 lb/week)
908 is rounded to 1200 because of minimum limit.
Based on that, you can see that 2 lb/week is too high of a weekly weight loss goal for you. Consider a lower weekly goal, which will be more comfortable, and much more likely to maintain long term.
Thanks for your reply. I'm really sorry, but I'm even more confused now. I think there's just something here I'm not getting or getting stuck on or something. Where do these numbers come from? What formula is the right one?
I'm unclear as to whether this makes a difference, but I'm not at all inactive or sedentary - I do work in front of a computer, but I exercise (yoga nearly daily on my breaks, Zumba classes, some strength/weight training 2-3 times a week, hiking/walking briskly for an hour 4-6x/week) almost every day. Since I started tracking my calories with MFP, I've noticed some days I HAVE to consume 2200+ calories just to net 1200 calories for the day. I was already vegetarian/ mostly vegan; the only real dietary changes I've made to cut back on calories is that I'm no longer drinking soda - and I was drinking half a liter or more a few times a week before - also stopped having dessert with every meal and cut back on butter and baked sweets. I haven't noticed any difference in my energy levels; I'm just hungry a lot more the closer my net calories get to 1200. I am consistently losing 1-3 lbs a week, though.
I really just want to know how many calories I should be netting to lose weight in a healthy way, just so I have some kind of guideline, and I'm getting the feeling the MFP numbers aren't right for me. So how do people figure it out?0 -
I agree with you all...I eat about 1250 calories a day and I have lost about 80 pounds now...Nothing is wrong with me...I'm full and it works for me..I think it's just to scare you:) Do what makes you comfortable, and what works for you:)
I would like to ask you one simple question,
You've lost 80lbs but I would love to know the body composition change, Fat % Lean Muscle Mass , etc...
Lose weight is nice but it's how you're losing it that counts0 -
I agree with you all...I eat about 1250 calories a day and I have lost about 80 pounds now...Nothing is wrong with me...I'm full and it works for me..I think it's just to scare you:) Do what makes you comfortable, and what works for you:)
How do you plan to sustain your loss once you reach your goal weight?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions