Starvation Mode

laula84

Whether or not starvation mode exists as it is written about here is irrelevant. Of course you will lose weight if you eat such a small amount, but you will pile it back on as soon as you get to a normal eating level (which you will because your body needs fuel!).

What is important is your health. You need fuel for your body and if you under eat your bone density will decrease, which will increase osteoporosis risks, your skin, hair and nails will suffer and your serotonin levels will become so out of whack that you will be anxious and depressed. And that's only a small part of the health problems!

Please don't crash diet!

Gatominx

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

Really? Does it need to be explained AGAIN?

I'm declaring a pandemic of deliberate misapprehension of the term "Starvation Mode."

first, I NEVER SAID anorexic was healthy, yes people die from that I know it and Im really aware of it.
second, if people die from anorexia then that proves my post, if starvation mode was real, no anorexic people would die, why?, cause they would stop losing weight as soon as they started eating less than 900 cal. The word anorexia wouldnt even exist.
thirt, im not starving myself, eating 1000 cal a day, for me is enough and I feel full. If I eat more than that I feel bloated.
fourth, maybe for me eating 1000 works, maybe for you dont, to each their own, every body is different.

So stop judging people that dont believe in that myth. Ive lost 37 lbs eating 1000 calories everyday, and u are not gonna change my mind nor make me eat more just cause you say so. Period..

have a nice day!

I cannot wait to see you in 1, 2, 3 or 6 months from now crying because you can't have a slice of pizza or normal meals at all for that matter without gaining an instant 5 pounds---people like you deserve to be in the 95% who regain ALL the weight back and usually more. In the face of the information regarding metabolism and healthy weight loss, that the unfortunate regainers lack, you stick to an unhealthy and unsustainable way of doing things. It's completely absurd.

Wow. It's one to thing to try to explain what someone is doing may be unhealthy and deterimental to their health, but putting someone down like this and waiting to see them fail and cry is pretty petty and just sad.

PhenomeNae

After reading all the responses, I think I have to add my 2 cents to the fray. I am a 42 year old woman, and I've battled my weight since my age was in the single digits. I started "doctor supervised" diets when i was 11 or 12. Medifast. It was horrible, I was only eating one meal a day and by the time I got out of school, I couldn't even stay awake. I felt terrible and sick and tired, and I know now that I was starving my body. Imagine going through puberty like that?
There have been other starvation diets where I would refuse to eat, and the last one being about 10 years ago. I lost about 100 pounds and I looked okay. But then I got pregnant and gained it all back and then some. My metabolism is shot, I'm started MFP at the heaviest I've ever been. I'm not here to "diet" I am here to learn how to eat. How to be healthy. Food is necessary, and unless we all address our relationship with it, we're never going to get anywhere.
Eat to live, live to eat. Be healthy, be wise, and don't ever refuse advice from people who may be a bit wiser than you.

meeka472

I compromise between the two camps--I shoot for 1200 one day (rest day with VERY light activity) and then shoot for 1500 with strength and cardio exercise the next and back and forth. I don't worry about net.

(MFP would only put my calories at 1330 for the highest activity setting anyway, on .5 a week weight loss, and I'm no construction worker.) There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that 1200 calories is appropriate for some people--based on this website's recommendations.

Exactly. It seems that some people on this board refuse to acknowledge that 1200 calories is an acceptable calorie level and is even recommended for some people by this site. I assume that if some people refuse to ignore scientific fact more power to them...

Regardless of the hype, not one of the people on this board bashing 1200 calorie diets can produce any scientific proof that it's harmful although there is plenty of medical information stating that is fine to stay within the 1200 calorie range especially if you are a small female which I happen to be. Sorry guys but I believe my doctor at Swedish Medical Center here in Washington over you...And the proof's in the pudding because I've lost 20lbs overall since I've started and have lost fat not muscle (yes I had a doctor check my bodyfat btw...)

FlaxMilk

I'm a small female too, Meeka. And I haven't had any levels tested, but the weight of the dumbbells I lift keeps increasing (currently at 3x the amount I started with), so I have to assume I still have muscle.

MoreBean13

I compromise between the two camps--I shoot for 1200 one day (rest day with VERY light activity) and then shoot for 1500 with strength and cardio exercise the next and back and forth. I don't worry about net.

(MFP would only put my calories at 1330 for the highest activity setting anyway, on .5 a week weight loss, and I'm no construction worker.) There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that 1200 calories is appropriate for some people--based on this website's recommendations.

Exactly. It seems that some people on this board refuse to acknowledge that 1200 calories is an acceptable calorie level and is even recommended for some people by this site. I assume that if some people refuse to ignore scientific fact more power to them...

Regardless of the hype, not one of the people on this board bashing 1200 calorie diets can produce any scientific proof that it's harmful although there is plenty of medical information stating that is fine to stay within the 1200 calorie range especially if you are a small female which I happen to be. Sorry guys but I believe my doctor at Swedish Medical Center here in Washington over you...And the proof's in the pudding because I've lost 20lbs overall since I've started and have lost fat not muscle (yes I had a doctor check my bodyfat btw...)

But don't you see how what is safe and doctor supervised for you **may** be unsafe for someone who is not being monitored by a doctor and trainer, nutritionist, whoever else? I actually don't agree with 1200 calories as a minimum for everyone, petite women, particularly those under 5' can be perfectly healthy with less than 1200 calories. I don't even agree with how 1200 was agreed upon or who it pertains to. BUT those standards were established to keep the general population safe, and I have no business telling someone they are or are not safe outside of medically accepted minimums. It's irresponsible! I think you know this, or you wouldn't have qualified all your statements with how much professional supervision you're receiving! There are very vulnerable impressionable people who read these boards, who are just trying to figure out how to get to their goals. I personally would be devastated if some piece of advice I dispensed became dangerous to someone, so I try my darndest not to say anything dangerous. We obviously can't be responsible for how random internetters will interpret our messages, but I at least am willing to try to be helpful, not harmful.

coconutflower

Hi I understand where everyone is coming from - and I just wanted to share my personal experience.

I was able to starve myself for 6 to 8 years eating 300 to 500 calories and then 800 to 1000 calories and stay within 90 to 100 pounds. I exercised like a maniac. Although I loved the number on the scale - I had a miserable life and I didn't look good. I was skinny, but a "skinny fat" like some of you say, and I didn't have a lot of energy.

Eventually, it caught up with me. It became increasingly more difficult to lose weight, and my life descended into a starve/binge cycle that would continue for 2-3 years, causing me endless misery and tears. But I couldn't bear to eat more - the 6 to 8 years of starving left me incapable of believing that anything BUT starving worked. So I kept starving and binging, never able to find balance and peace.

So it all comes down to - do you want to eat less than 1200 calories per day, look great, but never be able to down a slice of pizza without feeling guilty, or do you want to be able to maintain your weight eating 1500-2000 calories, climb a mountain, and still have energy to say yes to a glass of wine and pasta on a Saturday night?

I chose to live.

That's why I'm here now. Learning to eat more to lose more. And getting hella toned while I'm at it.

Don't make the same mistake I did - you are worth more than the tears I cried to get here.

Helloitsdan

not everyone follows the eat more to lose more religion.

Eating more works.
Physiologically speaking the low calorie diets tend to have higher bounce back.
Before deciding on a VLCD consider the amount of fat you have vs lean mass.
People who are 30% or lower shouldnt eat less than their BMR.
People who are over 30% can do it for a few weeks but need to come back to maintenance or close to it to regulate hormones.

meeka472

I compromise between the two camps--I shoot for 1200 one day (rest day with VERY light activity) and then shoot for 1500 with strength and cardio exercise the next and back and forth. I don't worry about net.

(MFP would only put my calories at 1330 for the highest activity setting anyway, on .5 a week weight loss, and I'm no construction worker.) There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that 1200 calories is appropriate for some people--based on this website's recommendations.

Exactly. It seems that some people on this board refuse to acknowledge that 1200 calories is an acceptable calorie level and is even recommended for some people by this site. I assume that if some people refuse to ignore scientific fact more power to them...

Regardless of the hype, not one of the people on this board bashing 1200 calorie diets can produce any scientific proof that it's harmful although there is plenty of medical information stating that is fine to stay within the 1200 calorie range especially if you are a small female which I happen to be. Sorry guys but I believe my doctor at Swedish Medical Center here in Washington over you...And the proof's in the pudding because I've lost 20lbs overall since I've started and have lost fat not muscle (yes I had a doctor check my bodyfat btw...)

But don't you see how what is safe and doctor supervised for you **may** be unsafe for someone who is not being monitored by a doctor and trainer, nutritionist, whoever else? I actually don't agree with 1200 calories as a minimum for everyone, petite women, particularly those under 5' can be perfectly healthy with less than 1200 calories. I don't even agree with how 1200 was agreed upon or who it pertains to. BUT those standards were established to keep the general population safe, and I have no business telling someone they are or are not safe outside of medically accepted minimums. It's irresponsible! I think you know this, or you wouldn't have qualified all your statements with how much professional supervision you're receiving! There are very vulnerable impressionable people who read these boards, who are just trying to figure out how to get to their goals. I personally would be devastated if some piece of advice I dispensed became dangerous to someone, so I try my darndest not to say anything dangerous. We obviously can't be responsible for how random internetters will interpret our messages, but I at least am willing to try to be helpful, not harmful.

Thank you. I appreciate your statements. I agree all of these statements about who's healthy and who's not are very unproductive and irresponsible. I'm big on having a qualified health professional evaluate for the individual what their caloric levels should be because there are many factors that need to be evaluated including health history, body type, etc. I think the calorie guidelines on this site while they may be appropriate for some people should not be seen as the final word for everyone. People are different and unless you are a doctor and have examined the person you are referring to it is unfair to say what they are doing is healthy or unhealthy.

I would also say that if your doctor tells you to eat at a certain level or eat a certain diet it is alway best to follow their advice as they have examined you and are aware of your full medical history.

In answer to your statement, yes I am aware that 1200 calories is not healthy for everyone which is why I've qualified my statements with the professionals that recommended that. But it works for me and I am healthy full of energy and losing fat. Honestly, I think anyone concerned about what calorie level they should be at is best served to talk to a doctor and let them determine that...that will always be better than just taking the suggestions of the website which are there for a guide but should never take the place of a health professional.

toriaenator

If you research the starvation mode theory, when they tested it people's metabolism slowed when they were at about 5% body fat and had been on extremely low calorie diets for quite a while. Even then they still lost weight just at a slightly slower (about 10%) rate.

If the starvation mode thing were really a huge problem, anorexics would never lose weight and people wouldn't die of starvation.

I think that the starvation mode is a scare tactic to discourage people from taking extreme methods to losing weight like starving themselves...

okay--well starve yourself, lose all of your muscle mass, reduce your metabolic rate, and then wind up skinny fat and unhappy--struggling to lose even more because your body still isn't even close to being where you want it to be despite having lost WEIGHT(mostly muscle).

THIS.

mollysonnotice

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

That is all.

Sarauk2sf

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

That is all.

You really have to consider the source of this article - weight watchers!

TinkrBelz

Bump...will respond tomorrow.

tigerlilly24

I just go with what my body tells me. If I'm hungry I eat and if I'm not then I don't make myself eat. If you are not feeling hungry then I doubt you'll be in "starvation mode". Also everybodys metabolism is different so if eating under 1200 works for you and you're losing weight then I don't see any problems. I f you hit a plateau or start suffering ill effects then maybe up the intake. People on here are so hardcore about starvation mode. Anyways bottom line just do what works for you and as always good luck on your weight loss journey

NoAdditives

I agree But there are a lot of conflicting articles out there online...I just needed some type of clairity! Thanks

I'll share my personal experience, the site was recommending 1700 calories a day for me to lose 1lb a week, I tried it and at first it worked but then I started getting tired, sick , it just wasn't working.

I then went to see a dietitian and had my metabolism tested professionally and discovered I at the time it was 2299 calories BMR, I was under eating by a massive amount, yes weight was dropping but I wasn't healthy. Now I eat between 2800-3000 a day and I have lost 20 lbs, gained muscle mass and dropped 4% body fat.

This may not have been starvation mode per say, but metabolic slow down does indeed exist and if people chose to ignore it that's their choice but to denounce it outright is dangerous in my opinion.

FYI : Metabolic Starvation does not = Tummy Grumbling

I had a similar experience. Before I started here I was undereating big time. I was getting 400-700 net calories a day. Initially I lost 10 pounds, but after that I didn't lose for 6 months. My trainer figured out how little I was eating and told me about MFP. Once I got up to eating around 1400 net calories a day I started losing immediately.

There is nothing wrong with eating more. It really works for a lot of people.

ETA: I never felt hungry when I was eating 400-700 net calories a day because my body had adjusted to that. I couldn't trust my hunger signals because my body wasn't used to eating the right amount of calories. I had to retrain myself.

MoreBean13

I just read this several times trying to figure out what exactly you are supporting by posting it, and I remain unclear. The title refers to it as a myth, which suggests you believe it is a myth, but then it goes on to discuss "starvation mode" as a stopping of weightloss, but then says that it agrees that metabolic slowdown does occur. Nothing I have posted in this thread has anything to do with metabolism stopping or weightloss becoming impossible, I don't think other people were either, but I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. I personally have been addressing the issue of a persons metabolism slowing down as a result of a VLCD, and other metabolic issues like cannabalizing muscle.

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

That is all.

Helloitsdan

I just go with what my body tells me. If I'm hungry I eat and if I'm not then I don't make myself eat. If you are not feeling hungry then I doubt you'll be in "starvation mode". Also everybodys metabolism is different so if eating under 1200 works for you and you're losing weight then I don't see any problems. I f you hit a plateau or start suffering ill effects then maybe up the intake. People on here are so hardcore about starvation mode. Anyways bottom line just do what works for you and as always good luck on your weight loss journey

Hormones and energy balance.

coconutflower

http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

That is all.

Just because it is possible to raise your metabolism after starvation mode, it doesn't mean starvation mode works. People are still regaining their weight all over the world and regretting it.

NoAdditives

I just go with what my body tells me. If I'm hungry I eat and if I'm not then I don't make myself eat. If you are not feeling hungry then I doubt you'll be in "starvation mode". Also everybodys metabolism is different so if eating under 1200 works for you and you're losing weight then I don't see any problems. I f you hit a plateau or start suffering ill effects then maybe up the intake. People on here are so hardcore about starvation mode. Anyways bottom line just do what works for you and as always good luck on your weight loss journey

Hormones and energy balance.

Your body adjusts hunger signals based on how much you eat. If you start eating too little for long enough you won't feel hungry. Your body will start to shut down non-essential functions and won't send hunger signals because it assumes you simply do not have access to food. If you were receiving hunger signals all the time you wouldn't be able to focus on surviving and say, finding more food. It's an evolutionary thing to help preserve life.

I never felt hungry when I was eating 400-700 net calories a day for months. I thought I was eating enough. But, I wasn't losing weight.

Honestly, where is the harm in at least trying eating more? If it turns out you can lose weight while eating more, why wouldn't you?

RiannonC

I just go with what my body tells me. If I'm hungry I eat and if I'm not then I don't make myself eat. If you are not feeling hungry then I doubt you'll be in "starvation mode". Also everybodys metabolism is different so if eating under 1200 works for you and you're losing weight then I don't see any problems. I f you hit a plateau or start suffering ill effects then maybe up the intake. People on here are so hardcore about starvation mode. Anyways bottom line just do what works for you and as always good luck on your weight loss journey

This is really the best solution. People need to listen to their bodies more often. I've noticed that most of the people who are outspoken against eating 1200 calories a day are men, for whom 1200 calories would almost certainly be too little. But for many women, it is a perfectly acceptable amount of calories that leaves us feeling satisfied. You have to listen to your own body, and if you're feeling low energy and run down you could very well be eating too few calories. If you're feeling great and energetic, and maintaining or moving towards a healthy weight, the number of calories you are eating is working for you whether it is 1200 or 2200. Don't try to cram everyone into the same cookie cutter.

When people are saying that starvation mode is a myth, they probably mean the myth that if you eat too few calories you CAN'T lose weight. You most certainly can, but whether it is healthy is a different story. The idea that if you cut calories too drastically your body will not allow you to lose any weight is obviously false.