Why is 'starvation mode' 1200 for everyone?

KilikiMom

I personally would starve to death on 1200 calories a day....but I am also very active and burn anywhere from 300-1000 calories a day through exercise...and probably more just doing normal "farm" work and I eat anywhere between 1500 and 2500 a day


I did try the 1200 a day for a while (with eating back some exercise calories) and I gained weight, and I was miserable and my stomach was literally yelling at me by the end of the day.....

for me if you are HUNGRY truly hungry then EAT!!! just make wise choices on what you eat

ndj1979

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

Umm no..eating nothing for 72 hours is starvation mode

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

Thanks for the link.

Your welcome. After I went back and read it though, it was not the same article I read in the past because the other one talked about the study that was done and this article didn't. But you get the idea from this article.

AsylumLynx

for me if you are HUNGRY truly hungry then EAT!!! just make wise choices on what you eat

This would be good advice - the downfall is some people (including me) sometimes have problems telling the difference between 'hunger' and 'cravings'

Annerk1

for me if you are HUNGRY truly hungry then EAT!!! just make wise choices on what you eat

This would be good advice - the downfall is some people (including me) sometimes have problems telling the difference between 'hunger' and 'cravings'

Slow yourself down. Stop to think about why you want to put something in your mouth. Learn to separate hunger from the rest. Drink a large glass of water and wait 20 minutes--and find something very busy to do in the meantime.

If you tummy is growling, you're hungry. If you keep thinking about how good those Doritos would be, you're just craving, and need to find a coping mechanism.

ritar4

I'm short - 5' tall - 51 years old- post menopausal - not just small boned but TINY boned. My family has a history of osteoporosis - mother had it and both older sisters have it. Small boned (I'm the smallest BTW) caucasian women have a predisposition toward thinning bones. I'm aware of this. I'm a HEALTHY eater and always have been. Evidence is that I've maintained close to my current weight all my adult life without starving myself (prior to menopause, I could eat carbs with impunity and never gain weight). I'm a nurse. I've educated myself on health and nutrition.

What stumps me about the 1200 calorie vs. starvation mode argument is that it doesn't seem to address my demographic. I honestly don't know how many calories to eat anymore to maintain my figure as I've always done so innately.

Suddenly, I find myself not fitting into my cute jeans that fit me well 6 months ago. My post menopausal decline was acutely abrupt and startling! My stomach has always been flat but is now a soft little pooch. I can live with that at my age if I have to, but I'm not going down without a fight! I'm not skinny, just very very small, so don't accuse me of anorexia, please. Those who know me, know how much I love to eat. I didn't eat any different to gain fat (not so much weight, just a couple of pounds over a dreadful winter). BTW, I gained weight just by having a can of tomato soup and a handful of triscuits at lunch every day. That's all it took! Too carby, I guess. I haven't eaten french fries or cake or chocolate or virtually anything not healthy for the past few years.

Since January, I have not eaten so much as a piece of bread. Almost no carbs. Not even a triscuit. A couple times a week, I eat oatmeal for breakfast and once or twice a week, rice with dinner. For much of the time, my carb levels have been almost Atkins levels - no weight loss. I have a male sedentary friend who loses crazy amounts of weight on Atkins - I lose nothing! Not even an ounce! Now mind, I just want to get down to the weight/jean size I was 6 months ago. I have tried EVERYTHING! I've tried Dr. Oz's suggestion and have a Faturday (my faturday is pretty healthy because I've given up all foods that aren't nutrition packed) just to kick start my metabolism. I eat almonds, salmon, salads loaded with colorful veggies with olive oil based dressing, grapefruit, brothy soups, chicken, turkey, broccoli, eggs, greek yogurt daily, occasional whole grain cereal with skim milk etc. and drink loads of black tea and green tea and have two cups coffee every morning (my coffee is sacred to my mental well- being, so don't mess with it!) I take calcium and Vit D3 daily. I drink water with cut lemons, I take cinnamon pills with chromium to speed up my metabolism, I take antioxidants (astrathanthin). I even do the occasional TBS of cider vinegar but will soon that because it may affect my already dwindling bone density. I challenge anyone to find fault with what I eat. I did my BMR and it said for my height and weight it was 1150 calories for sedentary to maintain weight. Dr. Oz had an expert on the other day who said that you should never go below 1200 calories because it slows the metabolism down. This certainly sounds plausible to me. But it's been over four months of trying various amounts of calories and exercising 7 DAYS A WEEK hard (elliptical, 4-5 mile fast walks, daily bike rides, step aerobics, Tai Bo workouts, mini trampoline workouts, just very very active all the time). Not a whit of difference in my jeans. They're even slightly tighter.

I could accept this "new normal" but fear that I will be GAINING weight if not for going through what seems to me to be an unreasonable amount of exertion and effort. I can accept never being able to eat another french fry or slice of birthday cake, but this is ridiculous! It is possible that my thyroid is slightly off, I suppose, but I don't suffer any fatigue or sluggishness associated with that. My skin is glowing, and I'm full of energy. BTW, I look exceedingly young for my age. I can't go to a doctor and request a TSH 3 or 4 test because they'd tell me I need my head examined!

I've come to the conclusion that the exact calorie intake that would facilitate calorie deficit is the exact point that my particular metabolism slows down. That is the only way to explain this. Is this what post menopause does to a person? And if I up my calories by a couple hundred calories, I gain weight. I never was and am not now interested in dieting to the nth, believe me. And I've already analyzed my eating habits for hidden calories/carbs, etc. I just want stability and balance in my eating habits and not steadily gain weight. Plus, I don't want to keep buying jeans...

ahmadfahmy

starvation mode is achieved when you eat 0 calories for 72+ hours....

neanderthin

It's just a misinterpreted term. Humans over millenia have adapted a way to preserve life from times of food scarcity and that is to lower our RMR. Fat and some muscle is used to fuel that food shortage and when we deplete most of our fat stores the body in a last ditch effort for survival will sacrifice mostly lean mass, bone and organ material when dealth is immanent. If someone is obese and not losing weight, look at miscalculations of the energy balance equation for the answer.

Fay132010

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.

THIS is correct, i'm eating about 1000 a day (give or take) and am losing steadily about 1-2 lbs a week, the 1200 is a ROUGH estimate! you need to take into account your age,height,weight and MANY other factors. i am still getting all the nutrients required for me to live healthyily (i am under in my sat. fat but i'd rather not risk a heart attack). i know a girl who was suffering from malnutrition because all she ate was rubbish processed junk ( and was way above 2000), and shedidn't look emaciated, as you would expect someone suffering from malnutrion to look, so don't just go by the set numbers, find what works best for you

Matt_Wild

Its not. It depends on your height, weight, age and general day to day activities.

Use this - http://www.globalrph.com/harris-benedict-equation.htm

deksgrl

BTW, I gained weight just by having a can of tomato soup and a handful of triscuits at lunch every day. That's all it took!

Salt. Water retention.

Fay132010

the BMR calculators definetly aren't accurate- i can barely manage my 1000 a day (before exercise) never mind the 1250 my BMR is supposedly. Every calculator gives a different number because none are that accurte

jzammetti

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..

This is one of those weight loss myths that we cannot seem to get past...but there is real damage being caused by under eating (loss of LBM, hormonal damage, metabolic slowing). This is not starvation (imagine African children with distended bellies), but still not good for you.

Matt_Wild

the BMR calculators definetly aren't accurate- i can barely manage my 1000 a day (before exercise) never mind the 1250 my BMR is supposedly. Every calculator gives a different number because none are that accurte

In your opinion.

The Harris Benedict calculation is a very well respected one. Having dieted many women and men and used my baseline on the suggested figures, I can say the one I suggest is very very good.

Matt_Wild

This is one of those weight loss myths that we cannot seem to get past...but there is real damage being caused by under eating (loss of LBM, hormonal damage, metabolic slowing). This is not starvation (imagine African children with distended bellies), but still not good for you.

Increasing evidence to contrary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY1DsZMNfNw

bpotts44

I'm short - 5' tall - 51 years old- post menopausal - not just small boned but TINY boned. My family has a history of osteoporosis - mother had it and both older sisters have it. Small boned (I'm the smallest BTW) caucasian women have a predisposition toward thinning bones. I'm aware of this. I'm a HEALTHY eater and always have been. Evidence is that I've maintained close to my current weight all my adult life without starving myself (prior to menopause, I could eat carbs with impunity and never gain weight). I'm a nurse. I've educated myself on health and nutrition.

What stumps me about the 1200 calorie vs. starvation mode argument is that it doesn't seem to address my demographic. I honestly don't know how many calories to eat anymore to maintain my figure as I've always done so innately.

Suddenly, I find myself not fitting into my cute jeans that fit me well 6 months ago. My post menopausal decline was acutely abrupt and startling! My stomach has always been flat but is now a soft little pooch. I can live with that at my age if I have to, but I'm not going down without a fight! I'm not skinny, just very very small, so don't accuse me of anorexia, please. Those who know me, know how much I love to eat. I didn't eat any different to gain fat (not so much weight, just a couple of pounds over a dreadful winter). BTW, I gained weight just by having a can of tomato soup and a handful of triscuits at lunch every day. That's all it took! Too carby, I guess. I haven't eaten french fries or cake or chocolate or virtually anything not healthy for the past few years.

Since January, I have not eaten so much as a piece of bread. Almost no carbs. Not even a triscuit. A couple times a week, I eat oatmeal for breakfast and once or twice a week, rice with dinner. For much of the time, my carb levels have been almost Atkins levels - no weight loss. I have a male sedentary friend who loses crazy amounts of weight on Atkins - I lose nothing! Not even an ounce! Now mind, I just want to get down to the weight/jean size I was 6 months ago. I have tried EVERYTHING! I've tried Dr. Oz's suggestion and have a Faturday (my faturday is pretty healthy because I've given up all foods that aren't nutrition packed) just to kick start my metabolism. I eat almonds, salmon, salads loaded with colorful veggies with olive oil based dressing, grapefruit, brothy soups, chicken, turkey, broccoli, eggs, greek yogurt daily, occasional whole grain cereal with skim milk etc. and drink loads of black tea and green tea and have two cups coffee every morning (my coffee is sacred to my mental well- being, so don't mess with it!) I take calcium and Vit D3 daily. I drink water with cut lemons, I take cinnamon pills with chromium to speed up my metabolism, I take antioxidants (astrathanthin). I even do the occasional TBS of cider vinegar but will soon that because it may affect my already dwindling bone density. I challenge anyone to find fault with what I eat. I did my BMR and it said for my height and weight it was 1150 calories for sedentary to maintain weight. Dr. Oz had an expert on the other day who said that you should never go below 1200 calories because it slows the metabolism down. This certainly sounds plausible to me. But it's been over four months of trying various amounts of calories and exercising 7 DAYS A WEEK hard (elliptical, 4-5 mile fast walks, daily bike rides, step aerobics, Tai Bo workouts, mini trampoline workouts, just very very active all the time). Not a whit of difference in my jeans. They're even slightly tighter.

I could accept this "new normal" but fear that I will be GAINING weight if not for going through what seems to me to be an unreasonable amount of exertion and effort. I can accept never being able to eat another french fry or slice of birthday cake, but this is ridiculous! It is possible that my thyroid is slightly off, I suppose, but I don't suffer any fatigue or sluggishness associated with that. My skin is glowing, and I'm full of energy. BTW, I look exceedingly young for my age. I can't go to a doctor and request a TSH 3 or 4 test because they'd tell me I need my head examined!

I've come to the conclusion that the exact calorie intake that would facilitate calorie deficit is the exact point that my particular metabolism slows down. That is the only way to explain this. Is this what post menopause does to a person? And if I up my calories by a couple hundred calories, I gain weight. I never was and am not now interested in dieting to the nth, believe me. And I've already analyzed my eating habits for hidden calories/carbs, etc. I just want stability and balance in my eating habits and not steadily gain weight. Plus, I don't want to keep buying jeans...

Your first problem is that you would believe anything Dr. Oz says. Also, your activity level is not relevant to your BMR. You need to calculate your TDEE and then eat below your TDEE to lose or eat at your TDEE to maintain. Try to eat 1 g of protein per lb of LBM regardless of your caloric intake.

twinketta

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

Ha ha! I like it :laugh:

LaurenAOK

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

This is pretty much how I see it. BMR is what's important - it's the number of calories your body needs just to stay alive, even if you were in a coma. So obviously, if you consistently eat under your BMR your body is going to start to have trouble. For the vast majority of people, BMR is above 1200, so eating 1200 or less is a bad idea. In fact, personally I believe that the majority of people should eating more than 1200 calories.

For example OP, if your maintenance is 1700 cals, you could eat 1450 and still lose weight (half a pound a week, which is what I'm doing). If your maintenance amount is that low, I'm willing to bet you're fairly small, which means your weight loss should go a little slower now anyway.

ETA: I do hate the term "starvation mode" because it gets tossed around so easily. While I certainly believe that eating too little will wreck your metabolism and can cause all kinds of problems including trouble losing weight, I wouldn't actually call it "starvation mode." It's a stupid term.

jofjltncb6

...and it isn't like 1250 is significantly better than 1150...any more than 1300 is significantly better than 1200. It's just where MFP drew the line...(inexplicably for both men and women).

Personally, I believe people trying to adhere to too low of a daily calorie limit is one of the single biggest problems with the current popular approach to weight loss...whether that's 1200, 1000, or 1500 (depending on the individual). If those amounts are a substantial deficit, then it likely leads to problems...not necessarily "starvation mode" problems, but problems like decreased metabolism, inadequate nutrition, long-term adherence to the decreased calories, etc.

goodtimezzzz

yup bunch of Bull I have eaten 800 to 6000 calories a day Starv. Mode is a myth...the trick is in varying your calories daily and weekly depending on your muscle building fat losing goals

KenosFeoh

It isn't; that's just MFP urban legend.

True starvation doesn't set in until someone is getting no more than about 500 calories per day for a prolonged period of time.

However, your metabolism will slow down with fewer calories, so it's a good idea to lose weight slowly while eating what your body needs to fuel your activities. If you can lose weight safely on - example - 1600 calories with minimal impact to your metabolism, all to the good, but the "magic" number of calories will be a little different for each person. 1200 is just the average not to drop below without the supervision of a doctor, but even that won't be true for every single person on earth.

salydra

Because of legal liability. 1200 is a point where someone at some point agreed was the lowest anyone could eat safely without medical consultation. MFP warns you away from going below that in case people used MFP to count much lower amounts and ended up with health problems they could not sue MFP because the app warns against that behavior and it would be misuse.

55in13

There is evidence for darn near every method working and few are proven to be bad. Except for some crazy extremes (I don't think IF is extreme, BTW) they can all work or all fail depending on whether your intake exceeds your expenditure or not. If you believe in the method you are using, you are more likely to stick to it faithfully (emphasis on faith). I believe I can vary my deficit from day to day and as long as there is one, I lose weight.

Isakizza

My starvation mode is around 1600.... anything less than that and I am bloody starving!!

^^^ Totally! LOL




Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

conniemaxwell5

Starvation mode is what your body does, not the number of calories it takes to get there. I think people use 1200 a lot because many diets / websites use that number as a guideline for weight loss and for MOST people it isn't enough.

If someone has a TDEE of 3000 and only eats 1500 calories a day, they may also go into starvation mode. It's about not giving your body enough fuel, not about a specific number of calories.

Your BMR is what it takes for your body to sit and do nothing. TDEE accounts for normal levels of activity. TDEE - 20% is a recommended calorie intake for weight loss. You can either include your exercise when calculating your TDEE and take 20% straight off the top or you can keep exercise calories seperate and eat your exercise calories back (that's what I do because my exercise calorie burn varies from day to day). TDEE should be recalculated at every increment of 10 pounds lost.

krhn

Each individual has their own maintenance level which varies so starvation doesn't mean <1200 for everyone... I mean take an extreme example of a dwarf, their maintenance would only be 1100ish

cwolfman13

A diet is not for life, living is!

Actually, "diet" is a noun, not an action verb...actually it is for life if you develop a lifestyle rather treating it as something you start and then stop...that's why most people put all the weight back on...they fail to adopt a sustainable dietary and fitness lifestyle. So, a diet really is for life.

As an example, I'm at maintenance...but what I eat hasn't changed a bit from what I was eating when I was losing...I adopted a dietary lifestyle that focuses on fruits and veg and lean proteins...some whole grains and minimal dairy...lots and lots of nutrient dense whole foods. Only difference now is that I just consume more calories...otherwise nothing has changed.

I diet is not for life only if you think diet should be sucking on celery sticks and avoiding certain foods simply because they are calorie dense or have fat or whatever else you have deemed as "bad"

bobf279

I don't even consider the MFP 1200, although I fill I my diary my target is TDEE-20% which for me is about 2200. I have been steadily losing weight on that basis and I eat what I want not "diet" food so I can easily carry on the same way into maintenance. (when I get there )

Siege_Tank

Starvation mode was first hypothesized after a study done at the University of Minnesota during World War 2. They wanted to know HOW to refeed the starving masses of europe without killing them once the war was over.

They took 36 male volunteers, and strictly controlled their diet for 24 weeks, feeding them a diet of 1500 calories for tall, robust men, and made them exercise regularly, doing common tasks, and walking at least 22 miles per week. After a couple of months of semi-starvation...

Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression. There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally). Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.

The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources.

However, these were a group of men whose Total daily energy expenditure were all close to 3,200 calories per day. Before the starvation phase, they measured each man's baseline "maintenance" calories, which averaged 3,200 per man. Their daily caloric deficit was almost 1700 calories per day. All of the volunteers were at a healthy weight before the study, with none ofthem having excess bodyfat stores to live off of.

Let's compare that to the typical MFP dieter worrying about starvation mode. Let's say a 30 year old woman, with a BMR of 1500 calories. She works out 5 times a week, That would put her TDEE at something in the range of 2300 calories per day.

To replicate the extreme starvation of the study, she would have to consume less than 1100 calories per day. If she were overweight, starvation would not occur until her reserves of bodyfat were depleted.

Lets say she DOESN'T work out 5 times a week, and works a desk job, stressed about kids, and is like some sedentary people, who get little exercise. If she was sedentary, her TDEE would be 1800, to duplicate starvation like in the study, she'd have to eat less than 900 calories per day.

And a lot of women, especially shorter ones, don't have a BMR of 1500....

The fact is, starvation mode only occurs in people who are at a normal weight. Overweight people who are employing a significant cut will see their BMR droop slightly, but nothing like what was shown in that study.

One final note, To anyone who still wants to argue that 1200 calories for overweight or obese people is going to damage your metabolism...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

This man, who was morbidly obese, weighed 456 pounds, and with doctor supervision, fasted for 382 days, consuming only water, electrolytes, and vitamin and mineral supplements. At the end of the fast, he was 180 pounds. 5 years after the fast, he was 196 pounds, with no lasting destruction to his metabolism.

It should be noted that other people who have undergone extreme long term fasts have DIED when they started to refeed, even under the doctor's supervision. So it's not a good idea to fast for that long.

Simply put, people who are at the higher end of "normal" weight, or overweight or obese, won't see "starvation mode". They will see a reduction in metabolic rate due to the body trying to adapt to the cut, but they will not see the extreme psychological and physical symptoms that were displayed in the Minnesota study.

If you're overweight, you can stand to eat less. If you're normal weight, you need to feed yourself properly and move to keep the body you want. If you have an Eating Disorder, please go see a therapist and get help. but Overweight people could stand to eat less.

1223345

It isnt.