"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

1…910111214

Replies

  • rasha349
    rasha349 Posts: 14
    Bump!
  • annacarmel83
    annacarmel83 Posts: 14
    Bump
  • lesliethescrivener
    lesliethescrivener Posts: 41
    great post. before MFP, i used to try and eat like 1000 calories when i wanted to shed some weight (which obviously didn't work). it wasn't til joining that i realized how important it is to eat (sensibly) to lose weight! i force myself to steer clear of "starvation mode" now, even if i think "i don't have time to eat."
  • steelersfamily6
    steelersfamily6 Posts: 138 Member
    BUMP BUMP BUMP
  • mmbutler2004
    mmbutler2004 Posts: 32 Member
    Bump
  • Aries03
    Aries03 Posts: 179 Member
    Bumping for future ref.
  • KerrieJay
    KerrieJay Posts: 8 Member
    If your body is in starvation mode, like i have a feeling I am/was... How long does it take to reverse the process and start seeing losses when you start to eat properly, rather than gains?
  • thecapaccino
    thecapaccino Posts: 138
    AND what if you are on Paleo (low carb). Lets say your goal is under 50g of carbs a day. There is only protein and so one has (or normally should) have a higher protein percentage intake.

    People are in ketosis.

    Ketosis is a reaction of the body to burn what is stored....so ketosis vs starvation mode?

    Is that happening?
  • Melo1966
    Melo1966 Posts: 881 Member
    Bump
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    If your body is in starvation mode, like i have a feeling I am/was... How long does it take to reverse the process and start seeing losses when you start to eat properly, rather than gains?

    Thats a difficult question to answer since everyone is a little different. If you truly do have a diminished metabolic rate because of a large calorie deficit, then the "safest" way to raise them is go very slow.
    I.E. add 100 calories to your diet (or 50 or 75 or what ever, any amount small enough to give your body time to adjust, I usually say no more than about 5% of you total), then give it 2 weeks at a minimum. Then re-evaluate and decide whether you need to up them again. Rinse, repeat as necessary.

    Yes this method is slow, but you probably won't gain any fat this way.

    Otherwise if you go the "immediately add 400 calories a day method" or what ever you're going to add, you're likely to shock your body, and before it comes to the realization that you're going to feed it the extra calories every day, (which usually takes any where from 3 days to 2 weeks by the way, but in severe cases it can take longer, even a couple of months), it will try to hoard the calories for a while, you're likely to gain 3 to 10 lbs of fat mass before your body settles.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    AND what if you are on Paleo (low carb). Lets say your goal is under 50g of carbs a day. There is only protein and so one has (or normally should) have a higher protein percentage intake.

    People are in ketosis.

    Ketosis is a reaction of the body to burn what is stored....so ketosis vs starvation mode?

    Is that happening?

    I've done quite a bit of research and study into ketosis and low carb diets.

    I'll say this first, while I have no problem with people doing a low carb diet, it should be done for the right reasons. Low carb. is for people with medical conditions that low carb. benefit (allergies, metabolic issues...etc.) or someone who has a psychological attachment to certain kinds of food (diagnosed). Or someone who just prefers that lifestyle.

    What low carb should NOT, EVER EVER EVER, be considered, is a better strategy for weight loss than any other type of diet plan (and in this context, diet just means what you eat, not "I'm going on a diet" but rather "diet - the type and amount of food you eat per day"). There is absolutely no science that I've ever found that says low carb. is better for long term weight loss vs. a normal healthy diet with reduced calories. Yes you lose immediate weight faster, but most of that is the water that the body no longer keeps around (that's part of the process of ketosis), and means nothing with regards to body fat.

    Second, low carb. is NOT, by any stretch, "just protein".
    Fats are vital to a low carb diet, and vital to not becoming sick. Someone who eats all protein can become protein sick and very very very nutrient deficient (regardless of how many supplements you take). In fact, most low carb diets generally raise the level of FATS very high (in the range of 40 to 60% of the diet) and even the original ketogenic diet (made famous by the Intuit's of Alaska and Canada) who eat around 90% of their diet from fats. Someone who ate nothing but proteins would most likely become nutrient deficient, even with supplements, and that would mimic many of the symptoms of starvation mode (because, in all likelihood the symptoms WILL be the same or similar).

    The things to keep in mind with any low carb diet, and especially a ketogenic diet, is to confirm, first, with your doctor that your kidney and liver functions are healthy and that you have no family pre-disposition to kidney or liver diseases, because ketosis involves high kidney and liver function, which can stress them, usually this is fine as our bodies are wonderful machines designed to handle all kinds of pressures, but if they are even slightly weak, stressing them can hasten liver or kidney failure, and either of those is VERY bad, and happens VERY fast. Do the research with low carb before you do it. It's a forever thing, it's not a 6 month thing. If you don't think low carb is a lifestyle that you can live with forever, then it's not for you.

    Aside from that long winded message that I just wrote (sorry), there's no change needed to be made for low carb and/or ketogenic diets that is different than any other diet to remain in a normal metabolic state. You evaluate where you are, decide what a good deficit is based on knowledge and common sense, and implement, tweaking as you go and being realistic and committed.
  • Jgen62
    Jgen62 Posts: 66
    Bump for later
  • Gurlyknockout
    Gurlyknockout Posts: 115 Member
    bump
  • soehlerking
    soehlerking Posts: 589 Member
    BUMP for logic on the message boards. :)
  • KristieWat
    KristieWat Posts: 23
    Bump
  • Steel6981
    Steel6981 Posts: 154 Member
    Bump
  • kaervaak
    kaervaak Posts: 274 Member
    bump
  • kristinasyoung
    kristinasyoung Posts: 8
    I find this extremely interesting and educational. Have not found, or rather don't understand why people believe it's not a real thing. Secondly, does anyone have any advice on how to meet my caloric goal (1200) and not go over my recommended daily values of the food groups, ie carbs and proteins. I'm under my calorie goal, therefore potentially jeopardizing my weight loss but I'm over in some of my food groups/categories... help! And I'm not eating junk, that's for sure.
  • kaervaak
    kaervaak Posts: 274 Member
    Going over on protein isn't bad at all. Actually, MFP generally gives a much lower than optimal daily protein total. You should be eating somewhere between 0.5 and 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body weight.
  • kaervaak
    kaervaak Posts: 274 Member
    bump, needs to stay active
  • paprs
    paprs Posts: 47 Member
    bump :)
  • Claire200489
    Claire200489 Posts: 5 Member
    Wow.. You hear so much conflicting information you sometimes dont know what to do for the best.

    This makes alot of sense.
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    I find this extremely interesting and educational. Have not found, or rather don't understand why people believe it's not a real thing. Secondly, does anyone have any advice on how to meet my caloric goal (1200) and not go over my recommended daily values of the food groups, ie carbs and proteins. I'm under my calorie goal, therefore potentially jeopardizing my weight loss but I'm over in some of my food groups/categories... help! And I'm not eating junk, that's for sure.

    You don't have a goal of 1200.
    You have a base of 1200+exercise calories.
    This will generally put you upwards of 1600/day if you are doing it right.
    Don't worry about specific macros at this point unless you are below 25% body fat.
    If you are below 25% body fat you'll need a different approach to get to your goals and eating 1200 will never ever get you there.

    To summarize: eat 1600/day and enjoy your fat loss.
  • nataliescalories
    nataliescalories Posts: 292 Member
    I find this extremely interesting and educational. Have not found, or rather don't understand why people believe it's not a real thing. Secondly, does anyone have any advice on how to meet my caloric goal (1200) and not go over my recommended daily values of the food groups, ie carbs and proteins. I'm under my calorie goal, therefore potentially jeopardizing my weight loss but I'm over in some of my food groups/categories... help! And I'm not eating junk, that's for sure.

    You don't have a goal of 1200.
    You have a base of 1200+exercise calories.
    This will generally put you upwards of 1600/day if you are doing it right.
    Don't worry about specific macros at this point unless you are below 25% body fat.
    If you are below 25% body fat you'll need a different approach to get to your goals and eating 1200 will never ever get you there.

    To summarize: eat 1600/day and enjoy your fat loss.

    There are certainly reasons why someone above 25% body fat would want to monitor macros (in my case, it is to monitor carbs and manage PCOS and IR). I'd also caution against saying "never ever" when there actually quite a few exceptions.

    OP: I really appreciate the tone of your post and I also appreciate the multiple times that you've highlighted that there will be exceptions in obese individuals or those with metabolic disorders; it showed a great amount of caution and care. I also think it's really commendable that you're waiting to offer suggestions on caloric intake until you have someone's entire profile.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Natalie,

    to answer your question, PCOS can (and usually will) throw a monkey wrench into the whole macro debate. Which is why I don't usually recommend anything to someone who has this issue (as well as many other metabolic issues), my best recommendation would be to go see a Registered Dietitian who specializes in woman's metabolic diseases, only someone with a college degree in clinical nutrition and years of experience helping people in you situation should advise you on this specific type of issue. If you have any half way decent health care, this should be covered as part of the treatment. And if you don't, I'd call around to a few anyway, sometimes they'll volunteer at clinics, and you can hit them up there for little or no cost.

    In general, 1200 calories might be fine for you (I'm not really sure since I haven't had the "discussion" with you and taken your specific info) but if you've made the determination that 1200 calories keeps you within a normal range, but aren't seeing the results you'd expect (and your RD has confirmed it's the right mix/amount for you), my first recommendation would be to inch your calories upward by about 50 to 100 and then waiting 2 to 4 weeks after each increase.
  • nomeejerome
    nomeejerome Posts: 2,616 Member
    bump
  • Mrc1974
    Mrc1974 Posts: 75 Member
    Bump
  • nataliescalories
    nataliescalories Posts: 292 Member
    Natalie,

    to answer your question, PCOS can (and usually will) throw a monkey wrench into the whole macro debate. Which is why I don't usually recommend anything to someone who has this issue (as well as many other metabolic issues), my best recommendation would be to go see a Registered Dietitian who specializes in woman's metabolic diseases, only someone with a college degree in clinical nutrition and years of experience helping people in you situation should advise you on this specific type of issue. If you have any half way decent health care, this should be covered as part of the treatment. And if you don't, I'd call around to a few anyway, sometimes they'll volunteer at clinics, and you can hit them up there for little or no cost.

    In general, 1200 calories might be fine for you (I'm not really sure since I haven't had the "discussion" with you and taken your specific info) but if you've made the determination that 1200 calories keeps you within a normal range, but aren't seeing the results you'd expect (and your RD has confirmed it's the right mix/amount for you), my first recommendation would be to inch your calories upward by about 50 to 100 and then waiting 2 to 4 weeks after each increase.

    I think you may have misread what was stated; I did not ask a single question. I'm well aware of how one manages PCOS and I see one of the top PCOS research teams in the country (yes, actual medical researchers) and 1200 is definitely ideal for me. I was merely commending not giving blanket advice and applauding your tone.
  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,783 Member
    I wonder if a small change in terminology would make this much easy to understand. I think "starvation mode" could be changed to "survival mode" and most people would understand the overall concept.

    My body doesn't want me to starve to death. My body wants me to survive, and will do what ever is necessary to achieve that goal - including sacrificing my muscle tissue in order to conserve the critical fat stores.
  • thisisgreatsmile
    thisisgreatsmile Posts: 41 Member
    Thanks so much for the information...how do I save this so I can share it with my friends...is there a way?

Categories