Why is 'starvation mode' 1200 for everyone?

AsylumLynx

I get the concept of starvation mode but we all know everyone needs a different amount of calories to survive. To maintain I would need to eat 1600-1700 cals per day, so to lose weight my goal is 1200 calories.

I understand the original study that made starvation mode popular was done on a group of men. Surely my body would need to eat rather less calories than 1200 before starvation mode effected me at all - as I need less calories to survive? Why is this not calculated per individual?

phatty4dayz

It confuses me too, so I would love for someone to shine some light on the subject.

ellaloveslove

It's not for everyone, it's a generalization, some people, for example someone who might be under 5ft tall and work a sedentary job who doesn't work out, might be just fine on 1200 calories a day. However, for the majority of people it is far too few. Granted it is a generalization to say that 1200 is 'starvation mode for everyone' like you said, but for the most part it's usually pretty true due to the fact that 1200 calories is under that majority of peoples BMR.

As I understand it anyway

mich1902

My tdee is 1700 but my bmr is 1400 so i'm trying that out. I will likely lose slower though which is frustrating!

Patovader

I would recommend that the largest deficit anybody creates does not exceed their BMR, that way you will lose weight at a nice slow pace which will benefit you greatly in the long run, just my 2 pennies worth for what it's worth.

A

MaraDiaz

I'm short, I'm old, and I'm sedentary as a sloth except for workouts during the times of year I can work out without my allergies and asthma kicking my butt. 1200 was fine for a long time, from about 150-ish pounds on down the scale. Before that I was heavy enough to squeeze in some extra calories and when I work out hard I can still get some extra, but otherwise, for people like me, 1200 wasn't starvation mode, it was lose 1-2 pounds a week mode.

Younger people, taller people, people who are active (you know, go to the mall, work on their feet or walk around the office a lot, haul heavy backpacks around campuses) should eat more than 1200 because you all are burning more even without hitting the gym.

iwillbetinytea

I don't get it, my daily to maintain is 1600 or something so my loss is at 1200 or less...I haven't noticed any loss of muscle (quite the reverse actually), I'm not super sleepy in the day and I haven't had any issues with deficiencies.

In fact I think it is counter productive to eat more because I would lose so little I would give up...I've lost 9lbs since the start of April. Previous to that I lost 10lbs (about two years ago, put it on slowly because I didn't watch what I was eating). I've never put on weight from eating less and I centainly haven't felt like I'm starving myself.

I am aiming to get to around 9st, my highest weight was 11st so I don't care if I'm doing it wrong - I'm going to reach my goal by August and I'll maintain and tone from there.

I would hate to spend years of my life trying to lose a little bit of weight doing it the 'right' way! A diet is not for life, living is!

MaraDiaz

I forgot to mention, I have noticed something odd lately. I seem to be able to average more than 1200 (going by the week) and still maintain or even lose a little. I suspect it's because I get out of my chair and move around more as well as fidget more than I used to. Less extra weight=more energy to burn more calories in little ways, maybe?

deksgrl

It's a number determined by The American College of Sports Medicine which is the largest sports medicine and exercise science organization in the world. More than 45,000 international, national and regional members and certified professionals are dedicated to advancing and integrating scientific research to provide educational and practical applications of exercise science and sports medicine.

1,200 calories is the minimum number of calories for women to get the nutrition they need, the minimum number for men is 1,800. It is generally considered to be impossible to plan a nutritionally balanced diet with fewer than 1200 calories.

larnsperger

WHATEVER... 1200 calories isn't starvation mode for everyone. There are so many "experts" on this site that know it all. Every single body is DIFFERENT. What works for one person may not work for another. I lost on 1200 calories very nicely, (recommended by my cardiologist). I am 5'6", 54 years old and post menopausal. I did NOT starve on 1200 calories, there are thousands of healthy choices to be made at 1200 calories. I've been on maintenance since December 1, 2012 and my daily calorie intake is 1650, and I work out average of 5 days per week. I haven't gone above 135, or below 132 since then. I would encourage people to find what works for them and stick with it.

CatMcCheesey

Here's an interesting read on "starvation mode".

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

ndj1979

if you are eating 1200 calories a day you cannot be in starvation mode. To be in starvation mode you have to eat NOTHING for 72 hours and then the effect is minimal. a lot of of people on where have a lot of success with Intermittent Fasting and skipping breakfast...not saying it is for everyone, but it works. I did IF lean gains 18/6 for about s ix months and really liked it ..only problem was that i felt I was eating and cooking at night ALL the time so I switched back to something that worked better for my lifestyle..

anyway, starvation mode is the biggest myth on MFP ..and it every time I hear it is like fingernails scratching on a blackboard..

You can read more of the research at www.leangains.come ..all the studies are posted..

ndj1979

It's not for everyone, it's a generalization, some people, for example someone who might be under 5ft tall and work a sedentary job who doesn't work out, might be just fine on 1200 calories a day. However, for the majority of people it is far too few. Granted it is a generalization to say that 1200 is 'starvation mode for everyone' like you said, but for the most part it's usually pretty true due to the fact that 1200 calories is under that majority of peoples BMR.

As I understand it anyway

your understanding is flawed....

ndj1979

I forgot to mention, I have noticed something odd lately. I seem to be able to average more than 1200 (going by the week) and still maintain or even lose a little. I suspect it's because I get out of my chair and move around more as well as fidget more than I used to. Less extra weight=more energy to burn more calories in little ways, maybe?

no, you are eating in a deficit ..aka burning more than you take in, hence, you are losing weight...

medic2038

Starvation mode doesn't exist. The whole concept "if you're starving and you eat you get fat" is so absurd I'm surprised people still believe this. Obviously every starving African and anorexic is fat right?

Metabolic slowdown happens for 2 reasons:
1. Loss of muscle mass.
2. Adaptive metabolism.

Loss of muscle mass is the main culprit in "starvation mode". Inadequate protein intake causes your body to pull protein from existing sources (IE muscles/LBM tissue). Less LBM=lower BMR= "(s)lower metabolism". Anyone with an eating disorder or intentionally severe deficit, can almost be guaranteed to not have adequate protein intake.

Adaptive metabolism comes from various hormone interactions in the body, and from generally all studies done on the subject caps out at around 10% of BMR caloric requirements.

Some additional reading:
1-http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/lean-body-mass-maintenance-and-metabolic-rate-slowdown-qa.html
2-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/?tool=pmcentrez
3-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696417

babydiego87

I think you've misundestood, under 1200 calories is "starvation mode"

CatMcCheesey

if you are eating 1200 calories a day you cannot be in starvation mode. To be in starvation mode you have to eat NOTHING for 72 hours and then the effect is minimal. a lot of of people on where have a lot of success with Intermittent Fasting and skipping breakfast...not saying it is for everyone, but it works. I did IF lean gains 18/6 for about s ix months and really liked it ..only problem was that i felt I was eating and cooking at night ALL the time so I switched back to something that worked better for my lifestyle..

anyway, starvation mode is the biggest myth on MFP ..and it every time I hear it is like fingernails scratching on a blackboard..

You can read more of the research at www.leangains.come ..all the studies are posted..

It's sad that so many people repeat that myth just based on what they've read in MFP threads. Believing in "starvation mode" just slows down your progress. Thanks for the link.

55in13

People make too much out of the concept. It is not some switch that gets flipped at some point. If you take in a lot less than you burn, your body will gradually start to adjust but if you have fat stores it will not adjust very much until those are almost gone. The men in the often cited study were down in the 5% fat range before they had really significant decreases in metabolism. Even then it is not sudden. If you start at perfect sustenance and remove 100 calories, you have a 100 calorie deficit. This continues for a few hundred calories and then your body starts to slow metabolism so that at some point a 100 calorie reduction in intake will translate to less than 100 calories of increased deficit, but it will always cause the deficit to increase. ALWAYS. I think the 1200 number is just a general rule of thumb; somewhere around there you have to start worrying about whether you are getting enough nutrients and it is just harder for people to stick to a really restrictive diet.

mumtheshopper

Well, I never heard of anyone starve themselves to obesity. But perhaps I'm not looking!

misseseaj2010

I read an article awhile back called "weight loss myths" or something like that and the starvation mode was on there. This particular article was saying that you don't go into "Starvation mode" until you get to a dangerously low body fat percentage. BUT the article did say that your metabolism slows down if you eat less than you should be, though the slower metabolism is not enough to counter act your calorie deficit.

I'm not an expert and neither are most people on this website who act like they know everything. I'm just telling what the article said, so everybody don't get all bent out of shape.

edit: I forgot to mention that the article was based on a study over a 6 month period. I attached a link to the article below I think this was the article I was thinking of but not entirely sure.

http://voices.yahoo.com/starvation-mode-dispelling-myths-2900886.html

peachfigs

My personal opinion is that low calorie diets are not starvation, but do have the potential to be nutrient deficient, just like a high calorie diet. If you eat rubbish, it doesn't matter what number of calories you're eating, your body is starved of the nutrients it needs to function and you will see the results of this in disease and illness. Your body has so many ways of telling you that its needs for certain nutrients aren't being met.

I'm very hesitant to call anything 'starvation' unless someone is not eating for days on end, such as someone with an eating disorder or someone living in extreme poverty. Personally, I feel using the word "starvation" in reference to a low calorie diet, where an individual can still meet their nutritional needs if done properly, trivialises situations where people actually ARE starving.


Edit: By low calorie diet, I mean a minimum of 1200 net cals.