This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

tobnrn

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.

God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.

Sarauk2sf

God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.

:blushing:

SPNLuver83

What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.

mcarter99

Well, I do read articles about nutrition and exercise (incl. ones on bb sites, and even have read NROL- both the men's and women's versions) but yeah, given my main interest is weight maintenance, I get more of the 'diet books' overall. Thanks for the edumacation on macros!

I still think I wouldn't be doing any long term damage to myself if I did choose to temporarily diet on 1000 calories (I only burn about 1800, given my age, size, gender, desk job, etc.). But I would feel too deprived for it to result in long term weight loss, so it's not really anything that I'd do anyway.

Where does the USDA recommend it? I was looking at stats like you said, 30% of a 2000 calorie diet. I was agreeing with you.

BrettPGH

I'm a big fan of science and evidence but in this case I don't even care about it.

Eating 600-800 calories a day is just a miserable existence. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?

Sarauk2sf

Well, I do read articles about nutrition and exercise (incl. ones on bb sites, and even have read NROL- both the men's and women's versions) but yeah, given my main interest is weight maintenance, I get more of the 'diet books' overall. Thanks for the edumacation on macros!

I still think I wouldn't be doing any long term damage to myself if I did choose to temporarily diet on 1000 calories (I only burn about 1800, given my age, size, gender, desk job, etc.). But I would feel too deprived for it to result in long term weight loss, so it's not really anything that I'd do anyway.

Where does the USDA recommend it? I was looking at stats like you said, 30% of a 2000 calorie diet. I was agreeing with you.

Sorry - misunderstood what you were saying re USDA. :flowerforyou:

Totally your choice to do the 1,000 (well. obviously!). As long as people know what the pro's and con's are and approach things with 'eye's wide open' its all good in my book.

Crochetluvr

Depends on the person. I eat between 900 and 1000 calories a day and I am not miserable. What is miserable is being fat.

ironanimal

Bump to follow. Mostly for laughs.

katkel52

i have researches this topic also and what i have found is that to a certain extent this is true. when u drastically cut your calorie intake you will lose weight say about 3lb per week but after a few days your body lowers its metabolic rate 'starvation mode', this just means that you will still loose weight but at a slower rate say 2 lbs per week. the weight will still come off. Also recommended to have a non diet day to give our metabolism a boost. I have never seen a truely starving person who is overweight.

Takatora

God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.

:blushing:

I have to ditto this person's sentiment. Your posts do a great job of staying on topic, presenting factual and well thought out support for your arguments without being filled with preconceived value judgements.

This is the difference between people who post contribution and those who post spam.

Sarauk2sf

Bump to follow. Mostly for laughs.

*blows rasberry*

wackyfunster

What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.

If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis.

You don't magically regain weight by eating normally.
It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese.
If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10.

Crochetluvr

What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.

If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis.

You don't magically regain weight by eating normally.
It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese.
If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10.

My thoughts exactly. I know a LOT about yo-yo dieting...I should after all these years. I didnt gain the weight back eating normally....I gained it back by thinking I could go back to eating exactly the way I had been....eating the junk and larger portions. And, yes....I didnt gain it all back in a couple months....took years.

thistimeismytime

I'm a big fan of science and evidence but in this case I don't even care about it.

Eating 600-800 calories a day is just a miserable existence. Why would anyone want to do that to themselves?

^^agreed!! :drinker:

Lasirenn

What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.

But really, how much is your metabolism going to slow down? Probably not as much as people think. People gain the weight back because they fall back into old habits and usually worse than before. Right now, at my weight my BMR is roughly 1700 calories. At my goal weight, it will be around 1400, those 300 calories "lost" almost add up to a meal for me. So, if I don't learn how to slowly shrink my meals or eat more nutrient-dense foods, I will eventually plateau or even start gaining weight again. I've gained and lost weight a bunch of times doing this. And whenever I gained the weight back, I was never heavier than I was before. I'd always return to my same "high" weight and size, because I would return to eating the amount of food that sent me to and kept me at that weight. If being smaller or dieting really damaged my metabolism each time, I'd probably weigh a quarter ton by now.

amnski

"starvation" is misused a lot, but to me, those women (or men) going on so few calories are not making a life style change that they can live with, not to mention the fact that most of the time (there are few exceptions) most of these same people "starving" themselves on 1200 calories or less are eating CRAP food... I have seen diaries filled with pizza, donuts, soda, and other processed junk...just so they can reach that "magical" number.

People, it's about making a good life style change and eating QUALITY HEALTHY foods, not just empty calories. If you want to eat so few calories, at least make it good food and remember it cannot be a long term solution. JMO

mcarter99

What she was told was kinda true. The thing is though, your metabolism DOES slow down, no matter how big you are, on such an extreme calorie deficit. Yes, you will loose, and you will loose fast, but guess what? When she starts eating normal amounts again she is gonna gain weight again because her metabolism will be so slow. That's what we call the yo-yo effect.

Eat, eat healthy, eat junk in moderation, just EAT. The loss will be slower, but it won't come back.

If they go back to eating 10,000 calories a day, they will gain it back. If they eat a normal caloric intake they will not. I don't see where metabolism enters into this. It's not like the metabolic downregulation lasts very long after a normal caloric intake is resumed. The body is amazing at maintaining homeostasis.

You don't magically regain weight by eating normally.
It takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese.
If you diet and become fit, it still takes years of eating at a large caloric surplus to become obese, regardless of whether you lost the weight in 1 year or in 10.

Amen.

I think part of what bugs me about the big starvation mode argument I see a lot here is that we're talking about people who totally messed up their bodies by eating the wrong things for years. Myself included. So when we talk about cutting back calories temporarily, suddenly it's de rigeur that we get the recommended amounts of macronutrients every step of the way? I do agree that you have to learn to eat right. But it just seems like the pendulum swings too hard in the other direction for a lot of dieters. They/we go from total "anything goes" eating to overly ordered, micro-managed, 'treat your metabolism like its a fragile China doll' style eating. I just feel like if someone is comfortable at 800-1000 calories or whatever and they're overweight, who are we to lecture? (Not that anyone here is lecturing. I'm referring to other threads, for the most part.)

crisanderson27

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.

God I think I love you. Thank you for telling it how it is.

Lol, and I love both of you .

By the way, this was the Sara I was talking about last night.

Sarauk2sf

Lol, and I love both of you .

By the way, this was the Sara I was talking about last night.

I hope you were saying nice things

amnski

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.

Agreed.

RuthieCass

Although I largely agree with the article, the problem with this blogger's argument is that it is mostly a strawman argument (something s/he somewhat acknowledges in the end). "Starvation mode" is a bit of a misnomer, but I don't think that anyone arguing about this literally believes that a person on a 500 calorie diet will not lose weight (and not eventually starve). They are arguing about the extent of the metabolic slowdown on such a diet. Obviously, a person on 500-1000 calories will lose weight quickly, but s/he will have a very hard time getting the nutrients and strength training necessary to preserve muscle mass. Someone on a 1200+ diet will likely have a much easier time preserving LBM and thus be able to avoid some of the metabolic slowdown.

There is also something to be said for the energy loss on a VLCD. When I was at 1200 calories, I started feeling more easily tired especially during workouts (than I do at 1450). If I have more energy for a kick-a** workout (in comparison to a half-a**ed workout on a lower calorie diet) and to move about more during non-workout times, then that will make up for at least some of the 250 calorie difference. I imagine that this comes into play when people talk about "eating more to lose more."

crisanderson27

Lol, and I love both of you .

By the way, this was the Sara I was talking about last night.

I hope you were saying nice things

Yes Miss!

yarwell

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

Bog standard for low carbers. Less than 100 calories from carbs, body can't use more than 600 from proteins, rest has to be fats.

Di3012

So you eat 1000 calories a day and lose weight like crazy. Is that sustainable? Can you eat like that the rest of your life? Obviously not. As soon as you try to maintain that loss you'll gain weight. You haven't learned how to eat properly or make good nutritional choices. Put simply, its not real life and doesn't work for the long run.

Not sure I understand your posting here.

The OP would not remain on 1000 calories per day during maintenance, if she did, she would continue to lose and that is not what maintenance is about.

When a person suddenly goes onto the maintenance part they have to up their calories until they find the level that maintains their goal weight, which means their maintenance may be something along the lines of 1600-1800 calories per day and it is THIS figure that they would have to continue with for life, not 1000 calories. The 1000 calories mark, for the OP would only be until they reached their goal, this goes with those on 1200 calories per day, those on 1500 calories per day, in fact, ANY amount of calories for different people that enables them to lose weight on it.

Once they reach their goal, they must up their daily calorie allowance to their maintenance figure.

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.

Bog standard for low carbers. Less than 100 calories from carbs, body can't use more than 600 from proteins, rest has to be fats.

Thanks.

But just wanted to be be clear - I am not a low carber by any stretch. I have enough calories to meet the protein and fat minimums to also have quite a lot of carbs (150 - 250g depending on how much fat and protein I get that day).

yarwell

This leaves no room for carbs

Well you don't need them so that is not a problem. There is no molecule in the group "carbohydrates" that we need to eat to survive.

100g of protein is enough for most people, that's 400 cals. 30g of fat is another 270 so 670 total. Take appropriate supplements and job done.

As for exercise, the number of scientific papers pre 1970 that refer to exercise can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Even recent papers say that exercise makes a trivial contribution to fat loss. Frankly, WGAS.

Darlingir

Not enough calories a day sets ME up for failure...There is only so long I can "hang on" with a low, low cal diet. I feel like I'm white knuckling it and then i snap. I need calories I can live with for the long haul.

Sarauk2sf

This leaves no room for carbs

Well you don't need them so that is not a problem. There is no molecule in the group "carbohydrates" that we need to eat to survive.

100g of protein is enough for most people, that's 400 cals. 30g of fat is another 270 so 670 total. Take appropriate supplements and job done.

As for exercise, the number of scientific papers pre 1970 that refer to exercise can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Even recent papers say that exercise makes a trivial contribution to fat loss. Frankly, WGAS.

Not needing carbs - highly debatable - and there are recommendations for the minimum fibre intake (see below). However, what I will say - I need carbs to have a reaonable quality of life. I did then math based on recommendations out there for my goals - your math disagrees with them. As I already noted, the recommended amount of protein for sedentary folks is less. Also, from my reading, 30g of fat is very low. So, I am not sure how the math works for a non-sedentary person who actually wants a relatively normal diet that at least includes some carbs and more importantly, some dietary fibre,

Source: quick search -
The Institute of Medicine's fiber RDI for adult females between ages 18 and 50 is 25 g. Females older than 50 to 70 need 21 g of fiber. For males, ages 14 to 50, IOM suggests 38 g. Males from ages 9 to 13 need 31 g; after age 50, males should consume 30 g.

ETA: not sure why you are bringing exercise into the discussion. Exercise for weight loss was not mentioned, at least not by me.

danysgoal

Hi
I don't know how old you are but I'm in my 50's. When I was in my 20''s very strict or weird diets were the thing. Pretty much the same as today it seems.I believed them when they said what they are saying to your sister and boy did I loose weight fast back then But I always gained it back no matter what promise I made that this time I would never go back to being fat. In my 30's, still battling my weight, you know yoyo style. Not that easy to be on a limited diet with kids. Tired all the time, not a lot of energy and feeling irritable easily. I used to have very thick hair and over the years, I lost a lot of hair and it is now very thin. But it happened so slowly that I didn't realize it. Now when I see women my age with a head full of hair, I can't believe that I did this to myself.
The worst though is that now, at 53, even with 1200 calories and good work outs with running and spinning 3-4 times a week, I am lucky if I loose half a pound a week!!!!! I follow my journal, I exercise and now I weigh myself every 2-4 weeks because it just kicks me in the gut when I know I've done good and the scale doesn't budge. And many of my friends, co-workers who were following the same fad diets, we were actually grouping together to stick with it ,are faced with the same issue.
So don't believe their crap. That's how they make their money , by selling the dream that it works and that once you loose the weight, you will stay at the same weight..
If I could go back, I'd just eat sensibly and exercise strenuously, which I didn't have the energy to do because of lack of calories.
Those friends of mine that didn't know the meaning of diet but whose second home was the gym are today still slim and not fighting the urge to binge whenever they are stressed. They deal with stress healthily, by working out their stress and not eating it.

thistimeismytime

This leaves no room for carbs

Well you don't need them so that is not a problem. There is no molecule in the group "carbohydrates" that we need to eat to survive.

100g of protein is enough for most people, that's 400 cals. 30g of fat is another 270 so 670 total. Take appropriate supplements and job done.

As for exercise, the number of scientific papers pre 1970 that refer to exercise can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Even recent papers say that exercise makes a trivial contribution to fat loss. Frankly, WGAS.

Are you seriously saying that it's healthy to eat 670 calories, zero carbs, and "appropriate supplements"?? And as for exercise, I would assume no one would bother--with that amount of calories, most people would be doing good to drag their miserable butts from the bed to the couch every day. Why would anyone want to live like that?!