The Starvation Myth

mcarter99

I think people get the term "starvation mode" confused with actual "starvation". These forums are FULL of people eating at or less than 1200 calories and complaining about not losing weight. How many times do you read a post that says: "Help I cant lose weight and I'm only eating 1200 calories a day and working out like crazy." There is obviously something wrong with doing this for the long term.


.

I think the common denominators in those threads are (1) working out like crazy masks fat loss on the scale, (2) eating 1200 while working out like crazy isn't fun so people want to see scale results quickly, not a month from now. It's not linear, though.

I see just as many threads where people are eating at 1400, 1600, 1800, any level and are working out like crazy (or not) and think they're plateaued. It's just human nature when we're stuck using scale weight, which is such a bad measure of 'results'.

mustgetmuscles1

I think people get the term "starvation mode" confused with actual "starvation". These forums are FULL of people eating at or less than 1200 calories and complaining about not losing weight. How many times do you read a post that says: "Help I cant lose weight and I'm only eating 1200 calories a day and working out like crazy." There is obviously something wrong with doing this for the long term.


.

I think the common denominators in those threads are (1) working out like crazy masks fat loss on the scale, (2) eating 1200 while working out like crazy isn't fun so people want to see scale results quickly, not a month from now. It's not linear, though.

I see just as many threads where people are eating at 1400, 1600, 1800, any level and are working out like crazy (or not) and think they're plateaued. It's just human nature when we're stuck using scale weight, which is such a bad measure of 'results'.

Must be the working out was the common denominator and not the under eating. :huh:

3foldchord

[here are my very own opinions, not learned through medical school- so don't do it, get sick, then sue me]

I think everyone is different. there are way too may people with too many differences for a rigid, one-way of eating-fits-all diet.
I think some people's body are more likely to 'reserve calories to keep from running out'-, thus slowing weight loss- and some people don't have that issue.
Try something, if it dooesn't work with your body then try it a different way.

***
and I have never heard the term 'eating back your calories'- but growing up it was common 'knowledge'- if you eat more- than exercise more to work it off it off you exercise LOT, you can eat that extra helping at dinner and it shouldn't be an issue.

you can 'eat less than you burn' by eating less or burning more or a combination. It's just a term (eating back calories)

marsellient

If you want to lose quickly, then go low, but don't expect to reach goal and suddenly up calories substantially. The problem for me is that I've "been there, done that"... twice. This time, I want to get the weight off in a slow, steady, healthy and sustainable way. I do not think I'm going to go into "starvation mode" if I eat less, but I do think that over the long term my body becomes accustomed to lower calories, and I don't want that to happen. I think this is what a lot of people mean when they talk about "starvation mode".

Now I'm going to sit back and watch the show...lol.

mustgetmuscles1

If you want to lose quickly, then go low, but don't expect to reach goal and suddenly up calories substantially. The problem for me is that I've "been there, done that"... twice. This time, I want to get the weight off in a slow, steady, healthy and sustainable way. I do not think I'm going to go into "starvation mode" if I eat less, but I do think that over the long term my body becomes accustomed to lower calories, and I don't want that to happen. I think this is what a lot of people mean when they talk about "starvation mode".

Now I'm going to sit back and watch the show...lol.

Exactly!

AngelikaLumiere

I hate the use of the word "starvation" . To me, starvation is when your body starts to consume it's own lean body mass to survive. That doesn't happen until you get below 6% body fat. I do believe that your body slows down to conserve calories if you get below a certain level on a regular basis, but that is not starvation. When I was in the obese category I never ate back my exercise calories and I lost weight consistently averaging about 11 pounds a month, once I crossed into the overweight category I noticed a drop in my energy and weight-loss and started eating back my exercise calories (except on days when I had huge exercise losses then I only about half of the calories back. I am still loosing weight but much more slowly than originally, but then I'm not lugging around the weight I used to either. I really think this whole debate is so heated because both sides are correct depending on how much weight you have to loose.

Hezzietiger1

I eat 1200 calories a day and i don't eat back my exercise calories. I'm not starving. Maybe, Maybe if I had less than 29% body fat that would be different. 8 months ago, I had 44% body fat. I kinda like the results I'm seeing.

Rhea30

.

tobielauren

Now I'm going to sit back and watch the show...lol.

The show that I would want to watch would be exercise physiologists and nutritionists and other people who have gone to school for a long time argue about things like this.

This is where MFP could be so much better. Get some of those people and have EXPERTS giving advice on this kind of stuff. I am in the exercise science industry but not a nutritionist nor a personal trainer (will have that soon tho)...and these threads infuriate me at times. Yes. It is important to gain advice and support from others. But when it comes to things that may in the end harm your body, if you are going to post things about how there is no such thing as "starvation mode" or eating too little then don't write it on MFP...join a pro-ana website.

Rhea30

MFP isn't the only diet that lets people eat back exercise calories. Weight watchers does it as well. You can exercises to gain more points to eat.

SueKnapp

Eat until you're full and then STOP. Don't eat just to fulfill some caloric goal of 1500 or whatnot. My opinion.

I 100% agree with this statement, I listen to my body, try to eat as healthy as I can which happens to be mainly low calorie stuff, I do not obsess over the net calorie target, if I am hungry I may eat a bit more, if I am not and I haven't reached my target I am not eating just whatever to get to that number
my weight loss hasn't stalled and I am losing mainly fat not muscle, I have tons of energy and I feel great.
Maybe I am miscalculating my intake or burn, I don't know, all I know is that 1000-1200 calories of healthy good food is working for me, when it stops working I'll reassess .....

I agree with the "eat until your full" statement. While I keep track of my calories and exercise, neither rule what I do for the day. I go by how I feel and how hungry I am and eat/exercise accordingly.

mmapags

What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).

That's because other calorie counting plans add the amount of exercise you SAY you'll do into your calorie goal. MFP only adds it to your calorie goal AFTER you do it.

Exercise calories is, as far as I can tell, pretty much unique to this site. Weight Watchers uses points, which is similar, but not as precise as counting calories and macros.

Absolutely correct Lorrina. Some assume them and have you eat a level amount based on what you input. some set a daily allowance without factoring in exercise and you eat more on workout days. MFP is the 2nd type. It's just not that big a point of contention. There are PTs who think you are absolutely doing it wrong it you eat 'em before you earn 'em. Makes sense to me. It's just not as complicated as some make it seem. Set you activity level and weight loss amount. That determines your deficit. Eat back exercise calories to keep a consistent deficit.

kuger4119

The thing that I find ironic is that the person who started the thread called it a myth but quoted an article by weight watchers that actually says that the body does go into a starvation mode. Ironical.

I usually lose one pound per week whenever I stick to my net calorie goals and that includes the fact that I always enter in my exercise calories. The weeks where I regress (before heading in the right direction) is when I go out to eat and eat too much. However, I've had a couple instances where I seemed to stall out for 2-3 weeks. By happenstance, about the time it seems I'm stuck in a rut, I go out of town and eat too much and gain a couple pounds. When I come back and hit the gym and watch calories, I quickly shed the two pounds plus one or two more. What does that mean? I have no idea.

veganbaum

What I find interesting is that there is a lot of discussion about "starvation mode" and "eating back your exercise" on MFP but you don't see it in other forums. Actually I've never seen "eating back your exercise" on other forums (or I can't remember seeing it).

This! Before coming to MFP I never once heard anything anywhere about eating back your exercise calories. If that is "THE" way to go, why had I never heard about it before? My doctors and trainers had never mentioned it, not even once. You would think that if this was the secret to weight loss, everyone would know. Or maybe I live under a rock, which is possible. :bigsmile:

That's because other programs either a) are giving you a calorie count based on the generic women-should-eat-1200-calories-to-lose-weight or b) they're accounting for your exercise in the calories you're given (e.g. TDEE -20%), so in actuality you ARE eating back exercise calories but it's already figured in to a set daily amount whereas MFP doesn't believe you're going to exercise x number of days a week at x intensity until you actually do.

*Edit: I see someone already pointed this out.

tobeftmom

I can't speak for the starvation mode thing but in my opinion the reason there is so much talk (or questions) about eating back exercise calories back is because I feel like MPF makes it a big deal. It says "oh hey you earned these calories back!!" Personally, I think people use it as an excuse to eat way more than they need to.

Sounds about right

mcarter99

Must be the working out was the common denominator and not the under eating. :huh:

Why is it people understand so clearly that you need a calorie surplus to build up a body yet they believe you can fail to shrink a body at a deficit?

There is no 'retaining calories' and no 'metabolism shutdown' just like you can't build muscles out of thin air.

tobielauren

Last time I went to the gym, I heard a trainer talking about how eating protein before a workout increases fat burning. Also how "Intermitten fasting" burns a lot more fat. Both claims are complete nonsense.

There are some nutritionist on MFP, they advice they say also makes no sense most of the time. Dr's aren't trained in this field either. I'd talk to a dietician if I needed any nutritional information.

I think the best is to learn yourself from actual research.

And that had been my original point earlier on. Read the scholarly journal articles. Talk to people who are in the field. I am a sport and exercise psychology consultant and can work with people who are trying to lose weight. What advice would I be able to give them on weight loss? The rudimentary things that I know (which is more than most on this site) BUT it would be to do the ETHICAL thing and send them to a nutritionist or a sports nutritionist.

Now it is MFP's turn to be ETHICAL and educate people about this stuff instead of these discussion/arguments that develop on the thread by people who many times don't know how how the nutrition will actually help you.

And I don't even listen to the majority of trainers in gyms because many of those certifications can come from online courses. I have friends who do the same thing but have gone through a Masters Program to have the proper education and certifications.

gramacanada

Yes weight watchers does give you activity calories. (whatever they call them). I too would like to know who the
'researchers' were. Magazine are often staffed with people like us who have personal experiences and opinions. but perhaps not a lot of scientific knowledge. Makes for good discussion but use your own judgement. If you stop losing, or if you're hungry, too tired whatever. Take a look at what you're doing and make some changes.

MoreBean13

Starvation mode = adaptive thermogenesis = metabolic slowdown
Starvation mode =/= Starvation (or any argument involving anorexics or africans)

There, I just cleared it up for you. Now we can all agree.

Acg67

Starvation mode = adaptive thermogenesis = metabolic slowdown
Starvation mode =/= Starvation (or any argument involving anorexics or africans)

There, I just cleared it up for you. Now we can all agree.

The question becomes beyond the slowdown you'd expect to see from losing weight ie having lower total mass, how much more will adaptive thermogenesis lower your metabolism from under eating?