"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

Esther50

heh. Yeah, I guess I am. I'd state it more like "if you're healthy, trust your body to tell you how to eat, if you're unhealthy, trust your mind to tell you how to eat. If it sounds extreme, then it probably is."


Easier said than done. Half the time I don't know what my body is telling me.

schustc

i LOVE this post...

I admit I stress over this almost daily. I worry I'm losing too much too fast, but then, I worry that I won't keep up with my average. Internal struggle for sure.

as someone with about 80 pounds left to lose (44 down so far), how much of a deficit is safe?

My TDEE is right around 2300-2400 I think (haven't checked it in the last week or 2).. I generally eat on average 1500 for 6 days, then a high/cheat day around 3000-4000 which puts me at around 1785 on average per day. This isn't a hard number, sometimes it's a little more, sometimes a little less.

I have been doing this for nearly 5 months. I was on a roll for the first 4, losing an average of 10-11 lbs per month or so. Then last month, I hit a plateau or a stall for a few weeks. I had gone on vacation and was in a camping situation where I had very little control over my diet, reading labels, or weighing things, so have no idea what I ate other than trying to do my best. I ended up plateauing for about 4 weeks.

Then, after reading I needed to do something different to break through it, I cut my average down to 1384 for 5 days, then ate 7000 over 2 days. As crazy as that sounds, it worked. within a few days I was down 3-4 lbs(I had played with one up and down during the stall).

I am back to my average of 1500 ish/day with a high day, but sometimes cycle that between 1 high day, or 2 maintenance days. Whatever hits me that given week.

Is doing this for 5 months going to cause me to face inevitable metabolic slow down? I really wish I didn't have to stress about it. If the deficit is ok, then I'll just keep going.

My BF % (shudder) is 42.3 as of last check (wednesday).. I work with a personal trainer 3 x a week, mostly doing weight machines. I didn't take my BF% when I started at the end of March, but 10 weeks ago it was 45.5 so I know it was initially even higher.

So my BF % is going down --- will update with a graph shortly.

Please give me any advice on if I should worry about my progress or doing any damage. I am worried about disappointing my trainer if things stop, and if they do, he's already told me he will change my diet which I am horribly afraid of. I like what I am doing now (freedom to eat what I want - though I choose mostly healthy foods). thank you!!





i can't get it to show any bigger

Chetanpayne

What a wonderful article you just wrote here. Thank you so much. I agree with you and hope I am doing it right!
You rock, grammar be damned! ( it all looked good to me! ) I think you write beautifully!

crystal_darling

Bump

beachlover317

bump - everyone needs to read this

islandnutshel

bump to read later, thanks for posting

beachlover317

*

cmcollins001

Very interesting post, thanks for putting in the time to write it.

beekuzz

Thanks so much.

19bulldog60

bump

CoderGal

As to the finer points of recognizing how many calories are "enough" for you. That's easy enough to estimate (with some impressision I admit, but it'll get you in the ballpark). Just find your approximate BMR (there's a ton of sites out there that do this, go to webMD and put metabolism calculator in, you'll find their tool for TDEE) and multiply by 25% and you'll get close to your TDEE.

I posted this thread on my news feed and someone pointed out that they didn't understand what the 25% thing was for. I kind of glazed passed it under the assumption that (BMR+BMR*.25) was approximately your TDEE (a little more then sedentary?) so yes 25% would be closer to anyones TDEE. But since I'm not positive and since everyone has different activity levels and because I'm half wondering why 25, could you clarify for me? Thanks

miller32807

Very well written, and well stated. This is something I've been reading up on a lot, and I feel that eating near your BMR is the best way to go with weight loss. I hear people all the time telling me how they are losing so much weight by eating 1200 calories per day, and I feel that is too low, for most people. My BMR is 1650, which really isn't eating too many calories per day, so why would I bother trying to go way below that? My biggest issue is getting myself back on track, so that I'm eating around that number. I don't mind going over it some, but if I don't track regularly, I think I'm well over 2000 almost every day, so I gain, or stay the same. The basic science behind BMR and starvation mode is there, so if anyone truly wants to read up on it, there is no way to not understand it.

It works, we just have to apply it correctly!! I think too many people miscalculate their calorie expenditure with exercise, or assume they are eating less than they are, so they think they are eating correctly, and really they aren't. We can't assume we are eating 1700 calories a day, and really be eating 3000 calories a day, and expect to lose. We also can't assume we are eating 1700 a day, and only be eating 600 a day, and still expect to lose fat and become healthy. Too many people also eat AT their BMR, but burn a crazy amount of calories daily, and don't eat anything extra to compensate for that. I'm not saying you need to eat ALL your burned calories, but it really does make sense to know that if you are burning a lot, then your body will need more put into it to continue running as it should.

Doberdawn

Thanx for posting. Hope the jerks on this site don't attack you too much. Lord knows I was all but eviscerated fo suggesting that starvation mode exists. Good luck.

sa11yjane

This was all really informative- thank you for taking the time to write your post

12ruth21

Thank you for writing this. It all makes sense now is this why you have to eat the calories you burn!

SHBoss1673

Thank you for posting this.

Finding the "magic" number was the hardest part for me. I'm 6ft, female, with 41% body fat, 240lbs & a type 2 diabetic & I find as soon as I increase my calories near 2000k a day the weight piles on. I gained 15lbs in a week when I stopped doing 1600, which is just stupid as I know for a fact I didn't eat an additional 52,500 calories that week. This is down to bm's getting out of whack, everything gets stored. Bummer!

I have experienced "starvation mode". Shortly after joining MFP I was doing 1200 cals & had lost 16lbs, all of a sudden, whilst on 1200 my weight loss stopped dead, I did cal cycling for a couple of weeks & dropped another few lbs but then that stopped working. After several months of no loss I lost interest & stopp cal counting & have gained 25lbs in the last 4 months & it took a while to get my head back in it but I am back on track again but know that I HAVE to consume at least 1600 a day up to 1800 for me to show a loss.

Finding the sweet spot is key.

Diabetics, and other metabolic diseases are difficult in the extreme, you shouldn't be relying on just MFP, an RD that has experience with diabetes is what you really need. Even I wouldn't attempt to coach one and I have a sister who's been type 1 since I was born (she was diagnosed at 3 years old, and I'm 11 years younger than her), so I'm very experienced with diabetes.
Not saying MFP can't be useful for you, just that along with MFP, you should also seek specialized help for your condition. It's doable, just not in the same way that most of us would need.

SHBoss1673

Low calorie diets can be effective and preferable in some circumstances so I imagine it's also infuriating for those people to read posts like this. Maybe studies like these are why doctors prescribe very low calorie diets and don't seem to fear "starvation mode" in their obese patients? This is what a quick search turned up:

VLCD compliance and lean body mass.

Abstract

Very low calorie diets (VLCD) have many advantages, as they are inexpensive, safe and easy to comply with, and give rapid and encouraging weight loss. On the other hand, many patients complain of hunger and constipation. We have shown that these drawbacks can be reduced by the supplementation of 30 g of dietary fibre to VLCD. By the use of a VLCD which provides approximately 60 g of protein for women and approximately 70 g for men, the dietary regimen is safe and no excessive loss of lean body mass seems to occur during VLCD in obese patients. However, the changes in body composition that may occur after cycles of weight loss and regain have not been clarified. After weight cycles with weight losses obtained by conventional diets, obese women have lower lean body mass than obese non-dieting controls. Hence, more information about the changes in body composition during dieting on conventional diets and VLCD are needed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2559044

Factors influencing body composition during very-low-calorie diets.

Abstract

Apparent body composition changes with weight loss on very-low-calorie diet (VLCD) can depend on the method of fat-free mass estimation. In this report the implications of differences in measurement by direct versus indirect methods are examined. The nitrogen sparing and protein economy associated with ketosis is relevant and results of clinical trials with diets of varying composition are presented. The analytical findings of a multicenter, multimethod long-term VLCD study illustrate protein and metabolic conservation during VLCD. Protein losses, by total body nitrogen, over 10 wk dieting, independent of body mass index, were 4.75% of weight lost, as conservatively expected from obesity tissue reduction with no degradation of total energy expenditure. The implications of utilization of glycogen (water and potassium release) in interpretation of diet success and of body compositional change is evaluated. Evidence is presented that ultimate compositional changes with weight change may be individually specific and that body composition may be predicted from weight considerations alone.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1615887

Reduction of body mass and change in body composition on a very low calorie diet.

Abstract

The quality of weight loss was estimated during a very low calorie diet (VLCD) weight-reducing regime by determining the body composition every second week using near-infra-red interactance (NII). The study was performed on 127 overweight volunteers, aged 18-72 years, who, for eight consecutive weeks, used a VLCD to lose weight. Mean weight reduction was 12.7 kg (12.6% of initial weight). Mean body fat (BF) loss was 9.5 kg (23.8% of initial BF), which constitutes 75% of the weight loss. Mean reduction in lean body mass (LBM) was 3.2 kg (5.2% of initial LBM). We found no correlation between initial body mass index (BMI) and loss of LBM, or between initial body composition and weight loss. Weight reduction observed in this study is mainly due to reduction in body fat, and the loss of LBM is considered not to be larger than acceptable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8383636

If you're concerned about the loss of lean body mass that occurs with dieting, lift weights.

Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

Utilization of very-low-calorie diets (VLCD) for weight loss results in loss of lean body weight (LBW) and a decrease in resting metabolic rate (RMR). The addition of aerobic exercise does not prevent this. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of intensive, high volume resistance training combined with a VLCD on these parameters.
METHODS:

Twenty subjects (17 women, three men), mean age 38 years, were randomly assigned to either standard treatment control plus diet (C+D), n = 10, or resistance exercise plus diet (R+D), n = 10. Both groups consumed 800 kcal/day liquid formula diets for 12 weeks. The C+D group exercised 1 hour four times/week by walking, biking or stair climbing. The R+D group performed resistance training 3 days/week at 10 stations increasing from two sets of 8 to 15 repetitions to four sets of 8 to 15 repetitions by 12 weeks. Groups were similar at baseline with respect to weight, body composition, aerobic capacity, and resting metabolic rate.
RESULTS:

Maximum oxygen consumption (Max VO2) increased significantly (p<0.05) but equally in both groups. Body weight decreased significantly more (p<0.01) in C+D than R+D. The C+D group lost a significant (p<0.05) amount of LBW (51 to 47 kg). No decrease in LBW was observed in R+D. In addition, R+D had an increase (p<0.05) in RMR O2 ml/kg/min (2.6 to 3.1). The 24 hour RMR decreased (p<0.05) in the C+D group.
CONCLUSION:

The addition of an intensive, high volume resistance training program resulted in preservation of LBW and RMR during weight loss with a VLCD.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826

For the record, I have no issue with VLCD's, but they are usually administered to people who are morbidly obese and in immenent danger where the obesity is more dangerous than the side effects of the diet. Nor are they generally perscribed very long, usually for less than 1 month, and in most cases they are either under hospital care, or via outpatient having multiple weekly visits with blood tests.

There's a big difference between a correctly implemented VLCD and someone deciding to create a deficit that leaves them with a few hundred net calories a day on their own.

joanne51971

bump for later :bigsmile:

Colleen790

Bump

Aukeilagirl

bump

ladytinkerbell99

Great read. Excellent information. Thanks for sharing. :flowerforyou:

SHBoss1673

i LOVE this post...

I admit I stress over this almost daily. I worry I'm losing too much too fast, but then, I worry that I won't keep up with my average. Internal struggle for sure.

as someone with about 80 pounds left to lose (44 down so far), how much of a deficit is safe?

My TDEE is right around 2300-2400 I think (haven't checked it in the last week or 2).. I generally eat on average 1500 for 6 days, then a high/cheat day around 3000-4000 which puts me at around 1785 on average per day. This isn't a hard number, sometimes it's a little more, sometimes a little less.

I have been doing this for nearly 5 months. I was on a roll for the first 4, losing an average of 10-11 lbs per month or so. Then last month, I hit a plateau or a stall for a few weeks. I had gone on vacation and was in a camping situation where I had very little control over my diet, reading labels, or weighing things, so have no idea what I ate other than trying to do my best. I ended up plateauing for about 4 weeks.

Then, after reading I needed to do something different to break through it, I cut my average down to 1384 for 5 days, then ate 7000 over 2 days. As crazy as that sounds, it worked. within a few days I was down 3-4 lbs(I had played with one up and down during the stall).

I am back to my average of 1500 ish/day with a high day, but sometimes cycle that between 1 high day, or 2 maintenance days. Whatever hits me that given week.

Is doing this for 5 months going to cause me to face inevitable metabolic slow down? I really wish I didn't have to stress about it. If the deficit is ok, then I'll just keep going.

My BF % (shudder) is 42.3 as of last check (wednesday).. I work with a personal trainer 3 x a week, mostly doing weight machines. I didn't take my BF% when I started at the end of March, but 10 weeks ago it was 45.5 so I know it was initially even higher.

So my BF % is going down --- will update with a graph shortly.

Please give me any advice on if I should worry about my progress or doing any damage. I am worried about disappointing my trainer if things stop, and if they do, he's already told me he will change my diet which I am horribly afraid of. I like what I am doing now (freedom to eat what I want - though I choose mostly healthy foods). thank you!!





i can't get it to show any bigger

I don't like giving a lot of specific advice in threads, just cuz people who it wasn't intended for end up reading it and thinking it's for everyone, but in your case, I think you're generally following an acceptable life path. I would gradually try to lower those 3000 to 4000 days to 2500 to 3000 days, which will make it easier for you to stay at a lower average without totally removing the concept of a higher calorie day. I think, generally speaking, with 80 lbs to lose you're probably fine with a 2 lb per week deficit (again this is a very vague assumption to be taken with a grain of salt) but remember, as your body fat goes down, your deficit must shrink as well, which will mean a smaller weight loss, some weeks you still may hit 2 lbs, others you may see no loss, this is the game we play. At the end for me, I had weeks where I lost 2, then weeks where I gained 3 then others where I lost nothing. That's just how our bodies are, if it was linear, it would be easy. But eventually science wins out (all other things being equal) and you'll lose what you need to.

Onederchic

Thanks and a bump :flowerforyou:

JenniBaby85

Thank you! Finally!!!

mluanne33

Bump for later reading

Aperene

bump

SHBoss1673

As to the finer points of recognizing how many calories are "enough" for you. That's easy enough to estimate (with some impressision I admit, but it'll get you in the ballpark). Just find your approximate BMR (there's a ton of sites out there that do this, go to webMD and put metabolism calculator in, you'll find their tool for TDEE) and multiply by 25% and you'll get close to your TDEE.

I posted this thread on my news feed and someone pointed out that they didn't understand what the 25% thing was for. I kind of glazed passed it under the assumption that (BMR+BMR*.25) was approximately your TDEE (a little more then sedentary?) so yes 25% would be closer to anyones TDEE. But since I'm not positive and since everyone has different activity levels and because I'm half wondering why 25, could you clarify for me? Thanks

Your assumption is correct, 25 is a very generic average. Some people's BMR is closer to 80% of their TDEE, and others (more active folks, for instance a mail man) might have a 65% BMR. It's all about your activity level. Also some people genetically just have a higher body temperature, which can mean the difference between Thermogenesis being 5% of your TDEE and 8% of your TDEE.

There are a ton of websites out there that tell you how to calculate your activity level, which you multiply times your BMR to find your TDEE.

here's the first hit from a google search for activity level multiplier.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=109911821&page=1

that seems pretty much accurate to me. So google BMR calculator, get your BMR, then multiply by the number for you in the above website to get your TDEE (then add any out of band exercise to it for that specific day, FYI, MFP already does all this for you).

But remember, TDEE is TOTAL, so if you do extra exercise outside your activity level, you must add that exercise to your TDEE to get the real number.

SHBoss1673

Thanx for posting. Hope the jerks on this site don't attack you too much. Lord knows I was all but eviscerated fo suggesting that starvation mode exists. Good luck.

appreciate your concern, but after 5 years on here, and having the actual facts to back it up, I'm not concerned.

SHBoss1673

I enjoyed reading your post, and I concur mostly although I think some of the points can be up for interpretation depending on what study you go by. My frustration with "starvation mode" is that the term is used very loosely around here, and it's used in a judgmental "holier than thou" manner. What you said is right on for someone who is truly headed in that direction. A lot of people on here including myself eat below BMR and TDEE range at about 1000-1500 calories, and are not in starvation mode. I suppose real starvation mode does exist, but it's not something we see here in the USA very often other than people with ED's or chronic diseases, etc.

It's impossible for someone with excess body fat, eating 1200 calories a day to go into any kind of "starvation mode." When you have plenty of fat stores to use, you are by no means starving (in the true meaning of the word). As long as you have fat to burn, your body will use it for energy. Balancing muscle and fat loss is the challenge though. Personally, I've avoided this b/c I eat a high protein and low starch diet and jogging. And I had my LFT and KFT checked 3 weeks ago and they are in normal range. Not saying this is the case for everyone, but it's how I found balance.

So, the misuse of this term is one of the factors that hindered my weight loss for YEARS and I know it has affected other people too. It was because I felt like I had to eat more to avoid the dreaded starvation mode, so therefore I should have a "cheat day" where I ate anything and everything so as to "restart my metabolism." Also, having it be the end of the day and craving a bowl of cereal and then telling myself I had to have it b/c I had only had 1100 calories that day so I needed to eat even though I wasn't particularly hungry.

I believe that people who don't have ED related thought processes can balance out calorie deficits just fine if they listen to their body. We all don't want to be extremely hungry and uncomfortable all day with no energy, so we find a strategy within ourselves to make it work using common sense.

While I respect your opinion, I don't agree, personally I feel that people enter starvation mode somewhat often, I agree that the term is misused on here and thrown around with wild abandon, but I don't agree that it's some almost never seen phenomenon.

I've seen the statement you wrote "It's impossible for someone with excess body fat, eating 1200 calories a day to go into any kind of "starvation mode."" before, but I don't agree with it. maybe you rushed the statement and meant to say that people who are morbidly obese?

I mean, a woman with 25% body fat has excess body fat, not a lot, but she does. And if she's 5'11" and active, then eating 1200 calories is probably far to low, considering her TDEE is probably around 3000.

Now, someone who's morbidly obese would have a hard time reaching a point where they will enter starvation mode, but that's because their surface area of adipose fat is so large that the available energy is large enough to satisfy most of the body's caloric needs.

WaterBunnie

"Quick facts to help you:
-The more body fat you have, the greater your deficit can be. "



Makes interesting reading. I still have half my body weight to lose, does that mean a higher than 1000 calorie deficit (from uneaten exercise calories) wouldn't hurt? I ask because I plateau sometimes even when I'm just 500 calories over this for the entire week which strikes me as ridiculous!