This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

Mrsbrandnewmeslimandtrim

Bump

sgthaggard

I would imagine if you couldn't lose weight by eating too few calories there wouldn't be so many people starving to death in this world.

rc8164

Agree with almost all of Sarauk2sf's posts above, and happy to see some good FACT-based info here.

I will disagree with you Sarauk2sf, on one point:
It IS possible to lose weight WITHOUT losing LBM.

It's working for me right now, and it's worked for me before...
Weight is down, body fat down, and LBM up!

It will NOT happen without good healthy diet combined with focused strength training, though.

Sarauk2sf

I'm in agreement with that. I don't advocate people eating less than 1000 calories/day for long periods.

What I don't like seeing is someone morbidly obese get the advice here to eat their 2500 calorie BMR PLUS their exercise calories, or else they'll go into starvation mode and permanently damage their metabolism, gain weight, not lose weight, lose muscle, etc. And I have seen that. There is no reason someone obese can't eat below their BMR. The added YEARS of obesity from having a tiny deficit are, in my opinion, much worse for the body than losing at a healthy 2 lbs/week. Not to mention most people will not track calories for 3 years while losing a half pound a week. They will say, "It's not worth it" and give up.

There is no reason most of us can't eat well below our BMR. Most of us burn at least 1400 calories in BMR. Eating 1200 is not going to hurt anybody overweight. For most of us, 1000 is not going to hurt us. Some of us, 800 is not going to hurt us. As soon as the discussion gets into the 'below BMR' level, the starvation mode myth starts getting thrown around, it seems like.

I totally agree with you regarding the morbidly obese - they can have significant deficits and not have any issues at all. And, as you mention, its weighing up the cost/benefit even if there was an slightly elevated impact to metabolism. The more overweight someone is, the more important that actual weigh loss is v metabolism.

The issue I have with people eating under their BMR - usually (and I am not saying always), this means that the deficit is too large for someone to have the most efficient way of fueling themselves and getting appropriate nutrients (talking about -morbidly obese here). Where I disagree, for someone who has say 30 lb to lose, eating at 800 for an extended period of time WILL hurt them as there is no way you can get the appropriate micro and macronutrients to lose weight healthily and to minimize muscle loss.

ETA: 1200 will hurt me - I do not have enough energy to strength train (= muscle loss), I would not stick to it, and I would not be able to get enough protein, fats, carbs and micronutrients to have my body working effectively

Sarauk2sf

Agree with almost all of this, and happy to see some good FACT-based info here.

I will disagree with you Sarauk2sf, on one point:
It IS possible to lose weight WITHOUT losing LBM.

It's working for me right now, and it's worked for me before...
Weight is down, body fat down, and LBM up!

It will NOT happen without good healthy diet combined with focused strength training, though.

Thank you - but sorry, I am gong to have to clarify one thing: It is not possible to have gained muscle. Unless you have newbie gains (a lb or 2 at the most) or are significantly overweight you CANNOT gain muscle on a deficit. This goes double for women.


How did you test your BF%.

Edited to be a bit clearer

rc8164

OK, sarauk2sf, went back and re-read what you posted rather than squabble lol,
(in case I missed a finesse point) but I'm still not convinced :-)
I will admit that my nutritional journaling didn't start until 2-3 months after my initial LBM gains--so
I can't say (with documented proof) that I was working at a deficit for the past two months, the real
truth in the pudding will come out with the next BOD POD on the 21st.

I am following a nutrutionist monitored diet (ha she set me up here so she could spy on me!) lol
Diet is healthy diet, with daily caloric target focused on overall fat/weight-loss,
based upon my exercise-adjusted BMR.

I am a 50yo woman, medical professional--10 yr hx of routine strength training, though had lost
my weigh (lol) dietarily over past 4 years and picked up significant body fat as well. I had continued to
strength train, though.

I had 3 lb LBM gain last month w/2% fat loss, though my weight wasn't coming down like I wanted.
II'm pretty sure from how I feel (easier to run) and what I see in the mirror, this month will be same or better,
WITH documented weight loss.

I'll let you know when I get my BOD POD results ;-)

I am just really glad she got me started journaling----WHOA what a difference!

Awkward30

OP didn;t say "Hey everyone, you should ALL eat 1200 cals or less!" So stop arguing about the ramifications. The OP is simply making people aware that they really be so tied to that magic number. At least 10 times a day there's somebody posting "I started eating healthier and I'm 5'0" and I can't net more than 1000 calories because I'm stuffed all the time. AM I GOING TO GO INTO STARVATION MODE?!?!?! Am I hurting myself?!" And the answer is no. People with a lot to lose and people that are already small may have to eat low calorie amounts. As long as they get the nutrients, it should be fine.

I have a feeling that a large portion of why eating more helps some people lose more is that they under-report more when they have a ridiculously low goal. If you only have 1200 calories it's easy to justify eating a small spoonful of peanut butter and not logging it. But it wasn't actually a negligible amount, so you ate 80 cals you didn't log. A bit of this and a bit of that can add up quite significantly. Also, people who feel restricted are generally more likely to binge or have cheat days which they may or may not log and which can easily knock out a lot of their hard earned deficit.

It's all about finding what works for you.

wackyfunster

Lol@damaging metabolism derp. A slow metabolism provides a ton of health advantages in terms of slower aging and senescence. Also, the lower core temp gives you better heat tolerance and endurance.

I have a slow metabolism (97.2-4 is my normal body temp, resting heart rate around 50) and maintain single digit body fat and am, as of my last physical, the "most disgustingly healthy" person my physician has seen.

It's not your metabolism that makes you fat, it's eating too much food.

Metabolic adaptation never exceeds caloric restriction, or it would be impossible to starve to death, and we could harness the zero-point energy being created by the obese to create matrix-like sustainable energy.

hcyndy

Some people eat 1200 calories per day of rubbish, others eat 1000 calories per day of nothing but good food - guess which one will become nutritionally deficient.

If a person is going to go on 1200 calories per day, they cannot afford to waste any of the calories on crap. It depends on WHAT you eat as to how healthy a person's diet is. People take figures and numbers far too literally and forget the quality of the food and drink consumed.

well said

Sarauk2sf

OP didn;t say "Hey everyone, you should ALL eat 1200 cals or less!" So stop arguing about the ramifications. The OP is simply making people aware that they really be so tied to that magic number. At least 10 times a day there's somebody posting "I started eating healthier and I'm 5'0" and I can't net more than 1000 calories because I'm stuffed all the time. AM I GOING TO GO INTO STARVATION MODE?!?!?! Am I hurting myself?!" And the answer is no. People with a lot to lose and people that are already small may have to eat low calorie amounts. As long as they get the nutrients, it should be fine.

I have a feeling that a large portion of why eating more helps some people lose more is that they under-report more when they have a ridiculously low goal. If you only have 1200 calories it's easy to justify eating a small spoonful of peanut butter and not logging it. But it wasn't actually a negligible amount, so you ate 80 cals you didn't log. A bit of this and a bit of that can add up quite significantly. Also, people who feel restricted are generally more likely to binge or have cheat days which they may or may not log and which can easily knock out a lot of their hard earned deficit.

It's all about finding what works for you.

People WERE expanding on the idea that 1200 is not a magic number - a discussion ensued - thats what happens in forums. And you added to that discussion.

ETA: we can discuss the ramifications as much as we want - it is on topic and actually a very civil debate (unlike most related to this topic are!)

Sarauk2sf

working with a great nutritionist and measiring by bod pod :-)

Not wanting to derail this thread and as there are a bunch of threads out there discussing this. But the only way a male, who has 16 x more testosterone than women can gain muscle (and only a few lbs at that) on a deficit is 'newbie gains' (if someone started lifting, or returns after a long break) or if someone has a lot of extra weight. For women, its even harder.

Klamber26

I read a study on weight loss and the numbers went about like this for an overweight male (BMI 25-29):

500 cal deficit per day = 1 lb per week
750 cal deficit per day = 1.5 lb per week
1000 cal deficit per day= 2 lb per week
1250 cal deficit per day= 2.45 lb per week
1500 cal deficit per day= 2.85 lb per week

You still lose MORE weight by eating less, it just simply isn't optimal.

KatieJane83

Of course you can lose weight by starving yourself or eating very low calories. I guess what I just never understood about this whole issue is WHY people want to do this? If you can lose weight by severely restricting or not so severely restricting why would I chose to do it the more painful/uncomfortable way? Honestly I'm just curious because I don't understand it. I don't like feeling like I'm hungry all the time.

turlykerd1

YUP, THEM STARVING AFRICAN KIDS ARE A RIGHT BUNCH OF FAT FECKERS

rc8164

working with a great nutritionist and measiring by bod pod :-)

For women, its even harder.

Point made. There is a difference between that and IMPOSSIBLE :-)
Just sayin... ;-)

HeidiHoMom

But why would anyone want to eat 800-1000 calories per day?

I am eating 1900-2100 calories per day and losing more than when I was eating 1200.

Sarauk2sf

OK, sarauk2sf, went back and re-read what you posted rather than squabble lol,
(in case I missed a finesse point) but I'm still not convinced :-)
I will admit that my nutritional journaling didn't start until 2-3 months after my initial LBM gains--so
I can't say (with documented proof) that I was working at a deficit for the past two months, the real
truth in the pudding will come out with the next BOD POD on the 21st.

I am following a nutrutionist monitored diet (ha she set me up here so she could spy on me!) lol
Diet is healthy diet, with daily caloric target focused on overall fat/weight-loss,
based upon my exercise-adjusted BMR.

I am a 50yo woman, medical professional--10 yr hx of routine strength training, though had lost
my weigh (lol) dietarily over past 4 years and picked up significant body fat as well. I had continued to
strength train, though.

I had 3 lb LBM gain last month w/2% fat loss, though my weight wasn't coming down like I wanted.
II'm pretty sure from how I feel (easier to run) and what I see in the mirror, this month will be same or better,
WITH documented weight loss.

I'll let you know when I get my BOD POD results ;-)

I am just really glad she got me started journaling----WHOA what a difference!

As I noted above, I am not going to derail the thread with discussing women gaining weight on a deficit - there are LOADS of threads out there discussing why it is not possible for men, let alone women.

The main issue is with inaccuracies with the measuring devices.

ETA: I am not trying to minimize what you are doing at all - as women who are not exactly teenagers anymore, it is doubly important for us to do resistance training.

Sarauk2sf

Edited: deleted so as not to derail the thread

thecazstewart

It's a question of time. I was easily coping on 800-1000 calories per day and dropped five dress sizes. But the longer I kept to this regime, the slower my weightloss became. Other members (it was on another weightloss site) were losing faster than me and they all seemed to "cheat" whereas I always kept to 1200 per day and rarely, if ever ate my exercise calories back.

By year 3, I noticed that I was always cold. A bone-deep cold to the point that my work colleagues made fun of how cold I always was. My exercise sessions never seemed to improve and I was never ever hungry. I could easily go from breakfast until 5pm with scarcely anything. My hair was becoming thin and my joints ached. These symptoms came on slowly - so slowly that I barely noticed them. I thought I was feeling the cold because I was now thinner - partly true, but certainly not to extent that I was shivering in jumpers when everyone else would be wearing sleeveless dresses!

I joined MFP in January this year and whilst I've only lost 8 pounds in that time (because I am repairing my busted metabolism) I am now eating 2,000+ calories on exercise days (NET: 1500) and have discovered hunger pangs before meal times, my running times have improved and I am again beginning to lose weight whilst eating far more than I have done in years.

So by all means, stick on a 1200 or even sub-1200 "diet", but you won't be able to sustain it long term.

wackyfunster

Of course you can lose weight by starving yourself or eating very low calories. I guess what I just never understood about this whole issue is WHY people want to do this? If you can lose weight by severely restricting or not so severely restricting why would I chose to do it the more painful/uncomfortable way? Honestly I'm just curious because I don't understand it. I don't like feeling like I'm hungry all the time.

Generally the people who would want to do it are the morbidly obese "you are going to die soon if you don't lose weight" folks. I've had a couple of friends who have been put on 800 or lower calorie diets by their doctors for that reason. Typical weight loss has been ~150 pounds in the first year.

The thing is, the ratio of muscle:fat that you lose is largely determined by your body fat %. If you are morbidly obese and at 70% body fat, you can eat literally 0 calories/day for months without losing a substantial amount of muscle mass. There is a rough calculation you can use of 30 calories of deficit/day/pound of body fat. So if you have 10 lbs. of body fat, you can lose 300 calories worth of fat, or ~1/12th of a pound per day. If you have 200 pounds of body fat, you can lose 6000 calories, or almost 2 pounds per day, which is probably more than the TDEE of most people with 200 pounds of body fat.