Starvation Mode
Replies
-
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?
Now your question is getting in to the murky territory of eating back your exercise calories. My opinion is you should net your BMR (so 1509) and never ever net below 1200. I myself am guilty of breaking this rule on days with a lot of cardio, but it's what I *aim* to do everyday. I think all of the formulas are just a starting point, and there is a lot of trial and error in getting the right formula for your individual body. I'm a bit confused by:I'm just hungry a lot more the closer my net calories get to 1200.0 -
Bump0
-
I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, the thread is too long to read the whole thing! but this was a really interesting article that ran in the New York Times Magazine earlier this year (it's called "The Fat Trap" by Tara Parker Pope), it concerns very recent research that has been done on weight gain, weight loss, maintenance and metabolic changes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-trap.html
The study the article is about was published in the New England Journal of Medicine 10/27/11, it's called "Long-Term Persistence of Hormonal Adaptations to Weight Loss" and here's the link:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816
here's the link to the "discussion" which is easier to read:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1105816#t=articleDiscussion0 -
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?
This is what I did to only about 1600 a day and excercised and lost about 80 now I eat about 2000-2500 and excercise and I still have a slight deficite thats how I maintain diet and excercise.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.0 -
From what I have read if you do not consume what your body needs to survive it will think you are fasting or starving therefore it will start storing fat for your body to live off of. That is the exact opposite of what you want if you are trying to lose weight. I too am struggling to get my 1200 minimum calories.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.. IMO0 -
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 -
OKAY heres a scare tactic for you. starvation mode makes your hair fall out, makes your periods stop, makes your nails chip, your skin turn gaunt and yellow and your breath to STINK. what the hell is wrong with nourishing yourself? maybe THATS the reason you cant seem to keep the weight off.
thats me eating 600-800 cals a day, about 3 months into my sickness. starvation mode is REAL. and do NOT educate people on matters that you know very little about. it doesnt happen over night, of course, BUT if you religiously eat way less than 1,200 cals a day there are going to be inevitable health complications. that simply is NOT ENOUGH calories to sustain an active lifestyle! CMON GUYS LETS BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES HERE!0 -
Thanks for everyone's patience with my denseness. I've talked to a nutritionist friend who also explained it. What I'm understanding is that:
- You have to net negative 3500 calories to lose one pound - that equals about 500 calories per day.
- My TDEE is about 2600 due to my size and active lifestyle, and my BMR is close to or about 1600.
- Somehow the MFP tools don't take into account your TDEE. It calculates your daily caloric minimums based on your BMR, which is totally incorrect.
In order for someone to lose 2 lbs a week, they need to be netting 1000 calories per day less than their TDEE. For me, this means I need to net 1600 calories daily, NOT 1200 as MFP suggests, which is not nearly enough calories for my size and activity levels. The reason I was maintaining my weight at 3000+ calories is because I was netting about the 2200-2600 calories I needed to maintain the weight at that level. MFP got 1200 from deducting that many calories from 1590*1.2, then rounding up to 1200 as a bare minimum, a formula that seems inadequate at best, and dangerous at worst.
As I understand it, to lose one pound per week, you need to reduce your caloric intake by about 500 calories daily from your TDEE, *not* your BMR, which is only your bare-minimum, comatose levels of caloric requirements. Since most of us are not in a coma I don't understand why MFP is apparently advising a lot of people to starve themselves and causing all this confusion.0 -
I can lose weight eating 1900 calories a day, ensure that I get enough micronutrients through food, go out and enjoy myself and have a meal/glass of wine etc, get enough energy to strength train, get enough protein and fats (yes, you need fats too), not worry about gaining when I hit my target and go to maintanance.
Or, I can eat less than 1000 calories a day, not get enough micronutrients through food, never go out for a meal, have declining energy levels, not get enough protein or fats and gain when I try to eat more when I have hit my target and run the risk of having a suppressed .metabolism.
Now, I can lose weight on both (I am currently losing at 1900) - but I know which one I prefer. So whether you believe in starvation mode or not, my question is....why would you pick the latter?
I get that this is a cost/benefit decision. If someone is very overweight, then the cost/benefit is different than someone who has 5, 10, 20lbs to lose.
Also, there are so many posts from folks under 1200 saying that 'it works for me' or 'I have lost no muscle mass' - how do they know? - have they had their metabolism tested and a DEXA scan before and after?
She will learn......Then she is going to be asking all of you for advice!!!0 -
I've noticed if you eat more than 1200 but your net is below 1200 because you exercised that day, then it doesn't give you that message. I've wondered about that myself, so in general, I try to get the minimum 1200 cals of intake.0
-
I did lose weight eating 1100-1200 calories a day, but the only problem I have with it, is how long can you keep that up? I have since raised my cals to 1450, and have in turn gained a few lbs.0
-
This is getting good!
0 -
0
-
Bump for later0
-
Eat less, exercise more. That is my motto!0
-
Really?!? You don't get it, huh? If you think that you are eating too few/too many calories based on the advice of a computer program on a website - here's a wild idea - GO SEE A DIETICIAN!!!
Bottom line? BIG difference between being healthy and being skinny.0 -
Bump to read all the input later. Have a great day everyone!0
-
Really?!? You don't get it, huh? If you think that you are eating too few/too many calories based on the advice of a computer program on a website - here's a wild idea - GO SEE A DIETICIAN!!!
This is great advice. However, not everyone can afford a dietitian and still want to make informed choices. There's nothing wrong with asking a few questions and seeing what everyone says - I don't think anyone has said on this thread that their very life hinges on the advice they get in it Also, for people like me whose insurance covers a nutritionist, it's not like they give you that appointment overnight. I made an appointment back in April - first available opening was in July. In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with making educated guesses. But, yes, a professional you trust is the best source of information.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions