This whole "Starvation Mode" Kick

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.