This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

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.

mcarter99

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

I'm curious what you use for a guide for how many grams of each macronutrient one should take in. If I just take this site's protein rec for me of 45 grams a day, WW rec of 2t. healthy oil a day = 10 grams fat and just an avg.-high rec of 70 grams carbs, that only comes to 550 calories.

I'm not arguing with your needs or anything, just curious how you're getting that 800 is too low for macronutrients. I have 25 lbs. to lose and shoot for 1200 but usually hit more like 1500, so this is all just theoretical, btw. I don't use macronutrient goals because I eat a balanced diet and it gets to be overanalysis easily for me.

stacielinn1980

I'm really frustrated right now because I have been documenting everything on here and was doing well when I started but in the last two weeks have GAINED back 4 pounds! I don't really understand what is being talked about either, if I eat the 1200 or equivalent because of exercise I seem to gain not lose... I'm so frustrated right now!

hsnider29

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.

Now this I agree with. If you are obese, along with reducing the amount of calories you eat, you also need to learn to eat at a reduced rate (from the current rate) for life. As they lose weight, their BMR will decrease and it may be easier in the long run to start at BMR for them instead of 2500 calories plus exercise calories. Most women wouldn't be able to eat that amount at a healthy weight and maintain that weight.

emnk5308

I'm on 1100 a day and make every calorie count. Good stuff, and multivitamins. You do have to be careful with diets like that though.. very very easy to gain back the weight.

Sarauk2sf

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

I'm curious what you use for a guide for how many grams of each macronutrient one should take in. If I just take this site's protein rec for me of 45 grams a day, WW rec of 2t. healthy oil a day = 10 grams fat and just an avg.-high rec of 70 grams carbs, that only comes to 550 calories.

I'm not arguing with your needs or anything, just curious how you're getting that 800 is too low for macronutrients. I have 25 lbs. to lose and shoot for 1200 but usually hit more like 1500, so this is all just theoretical, btw. I don't use macronutrient goals because I eat a balanced diet and it gets to be overanalysis easily for me.

General recommendations:

Protein mimimums: Sedentary - 0.45g per lb of total body weight, Strength training - 0.65g per lb of total body weight, Endurance - 0.8lb per lb of total body weight. Or you can go with the average of 1g per lb of LBM)

fat: 0.35 per lb of total body weight.

So, for me, protien = 0.65 x 169 = 110g = 440 calories, fat = 0.35 x 169 =60g = 532 calories. Total = 972 calories. This is more than 800 calories. Even on a 1200 calorie diet that leaves 228 calories left for carbs which = 57g of carbs. Getting to this level of carbs contistently and sustainably is just not do-able for me. And this assumes that the diet is 'perfect' in that I am getting all the micronutrients also. It is just not a balancing act that I would be able to do.

Macronutrient goals are very important to ensure that you can maintain LBM as much as possible and can ensure effective/effcient working of your body (e.g. fats).

MFP is very low on protein and fats and macronutrients should not really be based on % but on g.

pk6868

There is a diet by the Center for Medical Weight (CMWL) loss where you buy your meals from them--primarily shakes and bars packed with nutrients and protein. On this diet you consume 800 calories a day. So 800 calories a day can be done but only on the right diet. The CMWL diet also requires weekly or bi-weekly doctor visits to make sure patients are not losing too much water. These kind of diets long term can be very hard on the kidneys if not done or guided by experts. So there are certain diets people can be on where the calorie count is very restricted, but it is extremely hard to find a diet where you get enough nutrients to stay healthy on such restricted calories. "Starvation mode" might sound kind of harsh, but it makes sense that if your body does not get enough fuel (calories) it slows down the metabolism to savor and hold on to the calories it is getting and a slower metabolism is not what you want unless you are trying to gain weight.

veronicacannon

I don't know much about starvation mode but my mom does the Ideal Protein diet and its the only thing thats worked for her, EVER. She's dieted forever and has done it all and this has been the only thing that she's been able to do and keep the weight off. Its strict and definitely wasn't for me, but its worked for her and she is finally happy with herself.

hsnider29

There is a diet by the Center for Medical Weight (CMWL) loss where you buy your meals from them--primarily shakes and bars packed with nutrients and protein. On this diet you consume 800 calories a day. So 800 calories a day can be done but only on the right diet. The CMWL diet also requires weekly or bi-weekly doctor visits to make sure patients are not losing too much water. These kind of diets long term can be very hard on the kidneys if not done or guided by experts. So there are certain diets people can be on where the calorie count is very restricted, but it is extremely hard to find a diet where you get enough nutrients to stay healthy on such restricted calories. "Starvation mode" might sound kind of harsh, but it makes sense that if your body does not get enough fuel (calories) it slows down the metabolism to savor and hold on to the calories it is getting and a slower metabolism is not what you want unless you are trying to gain weight.

I just don't understand why medical profoessionals would think a diet like this is going to be effective. Sure, the participants will lose weight but are they going to eat bars and drink shakes for the rest of their lives? No, of course they aren't. Until you deal with the underlying issues related to morbid obesity, no diet is going to work.

mcarter99

Sarauk- Wow, 500+ calories of fats. I'm a fan of getting in your healthy fats but I've never seen that much recommended.

tenunderfour

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

LOL... more people should read this statement and take it to heart!!

crisanderson27

Interesting discussion. I don't have the mental fortitude today to get into a debate...but I'm happy to follow along.

Carry on!

Sarauk2sf

Sarauk- Wow, 500+ calories of fats. I'm a fan of getting in your healthy fats but I've never seen that much recommended.

Its very very common.

thistimeismytime

If your deficit is too large, your body will burn lean body mass as well as fat. If you want to decrease your lean body mass, instead of burning primarily fat, go right ahead and eat at a huge deficit--it's your body.

mcarter99

Not doubting you (on the very common fat rec), but got any links? I've done WW and read most of the diet books and I've never seen that.

thistimeismytime

Sarauk- Wow, 500+ calories of fats. I'm a fan of getting in your healthy fats but I've never seen that much recommended.

Its very very common.

500 calories of fat is only 55 gm of fat--that's not excessive at all--perhaps you were thinking she meant 500 gm of fat?

mcarter99

I guess it's not. 500 calories of fat seems excessive, just intuitively. I've been reading diet books that are so anti-fat they act like the less the better. But I see that even USDA recommends that level. (Not that I think they're particularly trustworthy.)

I read "Know Your Fats" and I'm a fan! : )

psychofantasy

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/484818-starvation-mode This thread may be of interest here.

obum88

One can you sustain?
Two are you getting enough nutrients at the calorie set?
Three how do you feel emotionally?

had to add............these low caloric intakes go one of two ways either you sustain for so long your bady starts missing the nutrients it needs or a binge will undo everything your are working hard to accomplish. Slow and steady wins the race.

Sarauk2sf

Not doubting you (on the very common fat rec), but got any links? I've done WW and read most of the diet books and I've never seen that.

The problem is that you have been reading 'diet books' and not reading articles linked with nutrition and exercise.

Here is a link that is really good - the fact that it is on bb.com does not change the recommendation for non-bbs

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981

This one links it to %age, which, if you think about it, is not the right way to look at it - a minimum requirement should not be based on your total calories, but on your bodies requirements which is independent of calories consumed. It does however indicate a 25% - 35% target and references 56 - 77g.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/healthy_living/Weight_Control/hic_Reducing_Fat_Intake.aspx

There are a bunch more out there also.

Sarauk2sf

I guess it's not. 500 calories of fat seems excessive, just intuitively. I've been reading diet books that are so anti-fat they act like the less the better. But I see that even USDA recommends that level. (Not that I think they're particularly trustworthy.)

I read "Know Your Fats" and I'm a fan! : )

Where does the USDA recommend this? - I have seen them use 30% of a 2000 calorie diet recommendation.

ETA: remember, there are 9 calories per g of fat and only 4 for protein and carbs, which is why it may seem high to you.