what is up with starvation mode...

Options
245678

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,035 Member
    Options
    The biggest problem and confusion I see is, people seem to interpret the meaning with multiple definitions.

    Like so many other things on this site.
    No kidding.

    LOL like cleanses clean out toxins???

    I was thinking more legit terms that are misunderstood.
    Like, consuming cholesterol cause heart disease, that's a popular one.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    YOU MUST STOKE THE METABOLIC FIRE EAT EVERY 2 HOURS

    i'd like to meet the genius who came up with that one...he has probably made millions on books...
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

    Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern.

    But yea, lets just forget that phrase.

    ^this...

    ...although I was under my goal today by about 200 calories, so I'm definitely in starvation mode right now...(at least until midnight when my body resets).
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    the other thing that gets on my tits is people losing their minds if someone eats slightly under their BMR

    I won't lose my mind, but I'll advise that it's most likely not a good idea for most people to do that.
  • cmcollins001
    cmcollins001 Posts: 3,472 Member
    Options
    Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

    Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern.

    But yea, lets just forget that phrase.

    ^this...

    ...although I was under my goal today by about 200 calories, so I'm definitely in starvation mode right now...(at least until midnight when my body resets).

    Wha??? The body resets at midnight?? I thought it was 7!!
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

    Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern.

    But yea, lets just forget that phrase.

    ^this...

    ...although I was under my goal today by about 200 calories, so I'm definitely in starvation mode right now...(at least until midnight when my body resets).

    I love the idea of the body resetting at midnight. I work a lot of back shifts. That would be super handy. Especially since the local pizza shop likes to send over their left over slices when they close (after midnight).
  • melb_alex
    melb_alex Posts: 1,154 Member
    Options
    oh, that reminds me, I need to eat some ice cream so I don't go into starvation mode . . .

    its been three hours since I last ate ...*kitten* starvation mode....F me!

    oh noz!!!!!

    im going to gain ten pounds....*kitten*

    ENlpYUS.gif

    HAHAHHAHAH AWESOME HOW DID YOU DO THAT!!!!
  • Alicia_P_28
    Alicia_P_28 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    Yes!! This DRIVES me crazy!!! omg. You'll go into 'starvation mode' when you are STARVING yourself...1200 calories (and probably even less) is NOT starving.
    And going below BMR will not kill you, I mean if you are at 1/2 of it consistently you might have a problem, but your brain, digestive system, heart, etc WILL NOT suffer..it will just EAT YOU for energy...and that's kinda the whole point...now when you run out of things for your body to eat for energy (fat, then eventually muscle..which noone wants to happen) THEN you've got real problems. I'll probably get a good bashing from the starvation mode police for this, but I'm a big girl, I can take it :P
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Yes!! This DRIVES me crazy!!! omg. You'll go into 'starvation mode' when you are STARVING yourself...1200 calories (and probably even less) is NOT starving.
    And going below BMR will not kill you, I mean if you are at 1/2 of it consistently you might have a problem, but your brain, digestive system, heart, etc WILL NOT suffer..it will just EAT YOU for energy...and that's kinda the whole point...now when you run out of things for your body to eat for energy (fat, then eventually muscle..which noone wants to happen) THEN you've got real problems. I'll probably get a good bashing from the starvation mode police for this, but I'm a big girl, I can take it :P

    It won't kill you, no. You'll still lose weight. The issue comes AFTER i.e. maintaining. Or even during.
    Its not fat then muscle, its both at the same time, even with the ideal diet. The larger the deficit the more likely you are to lose muscle. The whole idea is to lose as much fat and maintain as much muscle as possible.

    I've been there and done that.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    Yes!! This DRIVES me crazy!!! omg. You'll go into 'starvation mode' when you are STARVING yourself...1200 calories (and probably even less) is NOT starving.
    And going below BMR will not kill you, I mean if you are at 1/2 of it consistently you might have a problem, but your brain, digestive system, heart, etc WILL NOT suffer..it will just EAT YOU for energy...and that's kinda the whole point...now when you run out of things for your body to eat for energy (fat, then eventually muscle..which noone wants to happen) THEN you've got real problems. I'll probably get a good bashing from the starvation mode police for this, but I'm a big girl, I can take it :P

    Unfortunately, too large of a deficit results in the latter more than the former...and IMHO, eating below BMR is almost always "too large of a deficit". I'm a big proponent of eating as much as possible while making progress towards the goal instead of as little as possible...because I believe the metabolism adjusts to the calorie intake (and activity)...or at least it appears this way based on my two years of daily data on myself where I can see the gradual shift in NEAT dependent on whether I'm in a surplus or deficit over a period of time.
  • Alicia_P_28
    Alicia_P_28 Posts: 76 Member
    Options
    Yes!! This DRIVES me crazy!!! omg. You'll go into 'starvation mode' when you are STARVING yourself...1200 calories (and probably even less) is NOT starving.
    And going below BMR will not kill you, I mean if you are at 1/2 of it consistently you might have a problem, but your brain, digestive system, heart, etc WILL NOT suffer..it will just EAT YOU for energy...and that's kinda the whole point...now when you run out of things for your body to eat for energy (fat, then eventually muscle..which noone wants to happen) THEN you've got real problems. I'll probably get a good bashing from the starvation mode police for this, but I'm a big girl, I can take it :P

    Unfortunately, too large of a deficit results in the latter more than the former...and IMHO, eating below BMR is almost always "too large of a deficit". I'm a big proponent of eating as much as possible while making progress towards the goal instead of as little as possible...because I believe the metabolism adjusts to the calorie intake (and activity)...or at least it appears this way based on my two years of daily data on myself where I can see the gradual shift in NEAT dependent on whether I'm in a surplus or deficit over a period of time.
    Well, too large of a deficit has a name...anorexia nervosa. I mean eating a decent amount of food, clearly NOT starving yourself. If I do a vegan day (totally not illegal by mfp standards) it's NEARLY impossible to eat all my calories without gorging on peanut butter or almonds. And I'm not going to eat peanut butter by the spoon (the thought makes me want to vomit) just to get calories. The point is, your brain will not cease to function because you didn't meet the BMR...it will get it's energy by converting your fat and/or muscle to usable energy...a simple physiology class will teach that. I do agree that long term living under BMR can cause problems (because clearly eventually you're going to run out of fat/muscle for your body to live on...and the health problems will be there WAY before this happens) but occasionally going below, or even running a bit (little bit, not like 1/2) below BMR is NOT going to kill you.
    *I'd add in a 'trust me, I'm a doctor' at this moment..but I'm not going to...but I AM a nursing student (working on my BSN) and I've taken enough classes regarding the human body to know a little bit about it...clearly I'm here because I didn't follow what I know, but that's another situation all together LOL
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,035 Member
    Options
    Yes!! This DRIVES me crazy!!! omg. You'll go into 'starvation mode' when you are STARVING yourself...1200 calories (and probably even less) is NOT starving.
    And going below BMR will not kill you, I mean if you are at 1/2 of it consistently you might have a problem, but your brain, digestive system, heart, etc WILL NOT suffer..it will just EAT YOU for energy...and that's kinda the whole point...now when you run out of things for your body to eat for energy (fat, then eventually muscle..which noone wants to happen) THEN you've got real problems. I'll probably get a good bashing from the starvation mode police for this, but I'm a big girl, I can take it :P

    Unfortunately, too large of a deficit results in the latter more than the former...and IMHO, eating below BMR is almost always "too large of a deficit". I'm a big proponent of eating as much as possible while making progress towards the goal instead of as little as possible...because I believe the metabolism adjusts to the calorie intake (and activity)...or at least it appears this way based on my two years of daily data on myself where I can see the gradual shift in NEAT dependent on whether I'm in a surplus or deficit over a period of time.
    Much of the decision to utilize muscle is determined by the amount of stored energy in the form of fatty acids someone has. Obese people will have enough fat for ketone production over the long haul as compared to someone with much lower body fat. Basically there are situation where eating under BMR is not a problem. It's the nutrient contribution that that situation produces, so in that context, it's not advisable.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Yes!! This DRIVES me crazy!!! omg. You'll go into 'starvation mode' when you are STARVING yourself...1200 calories (and probably even less) is NOT starving.
    And going below BMR will not kill you, I mean if you are at 1/2 of it consistently you might have a problem, but your brain, digestive system, heart, etc WILL NOT suffer..it will just EAT YOU for energy...and that's kinda the whole point...now when you run out of things for your body to eat for energy (fat, then eventually muscle..which noone wants to happen) THEN you've got real problems. I'll probably get a good bashing from the starvation mode police for this, but I'm a big girl, I can take it :P

    Unfortunately, too large of a deficit results in the latter more than the former...and IMHO, eating below BMR is almost always "too large of a deficit". I'm a big proponent of eating as much as possible while making progress towards the goal instead of as little as possible...because I believe the metabolism adjusts to the calorie intake (and activity)...or at least it appears this way based on my two years of daily data on myself where I can see the gradual shift in NEAT dependent on whether I'm in a surplus or deficit over a period of time.
    Well, too large of a deficit has a name...anorexia nervosa. I mean eating a decent amount of food, clearly NOT starving yourself. If I do a vegan day (totally not illegal by mfp standards) it's NEARLY impossible to eat all my calories without gorging on peanut butter or almonds. And I'm not going to eat peanut butter by the spoon (the thought makes me want to vomit) just to get calories. The point is, your brain will not cease to function because you didn't meet the BMR...it will get it's energy by converting your fat and/or muscle to usable energy...a simple physiology class will teach that. I do agree that long term living under BMR can cause problems (because clearly eventually you're going to run out of fat/muscle for your body to live on...and the health problems will be there WAY before this happens) but occasionally going below, or even running a bit (little bit, not like 1/2) below BMR is NOT going to kill you.
    *I'd add in a 'trust me, I'm a doctor' at this moment..but I'm not going to...but I AM a nursing student (working on my BSN) and I've taken enough classes regarding the human body to know a little bit about it...clearly I'm here because I didn't follow what I know, but that's another situation all together LOL

    Yeah, I've done what I am warning about and I have never been close to suffering from anorexia nervosa. There is a HUGE difference between having too large of a deficit and the negative effects and anorexia.
    The whole point if this thread is about dispelling the fear of going under calorie goal for one day or a couple of days. The point I was making was about doing it over a long period of time - like a lot (not all) of those who are eating 1200 calories a day and exercising. For a lot of people (not everyone) on this site, 1200 is under BMR, then there is adding exercise on top of that.
    No, your brain will not stop functioning, no one here has said that. We are talking about continuing in weight loss and maintaining once you have reached goal and how hard that may be.
    And I am very familiar with BSN program.

    ETA - because I just saw neaderthin's post - yes, the more you have to lose, the greater the calorie deficit can be. But eventually it comes down to modest deficits.
  • Mcgrawhaha
    Mcgrawhaha Posts: 1,596 Member
    Options
    i eat 1200 cals a day, and im not in starvation mode. im losing weight, definately not starving, and feeling awesome!!! ive lost 71 pounds in 8 months... just about done here with losing in a few more months...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    The biggest problem and confusion I see is, people seem to interpret the meaning with multiple definitions.

    Like so many other things on this site.
    No kidding.

    LOL like cleanses clean out toxins???

    I was thinking more legit terms that are misunderstood.

    cleanses are not legit? crap....
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

    Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern.

    But yea, lets just forget that phrase.

    ^this...

    ...although I was under my goal today by about 200 calories, so I'm definitely in starvation mode right now...(at least until midnight when my body resets).

    Wha??? The body resets at midnight?? I thought it was 7!!

    no, the intestines shut down at 8pm but the body then resets at midnight...got it now?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    Yes!! This DRIVES me crazy!!! omg. You'll go into 'starvation mode' when you are STARVING yourself...1200 calories (and probably even less) is NOT starving.
    And going below BMR will not kill you, I mean if you are at 1/2 of it consistently you might have a problem, but your brain, digestive system, heart, etc WILL NOT suffer..it will just EAT YOU for energy...and that's kinda the whole point...now when you run out of things for your body to eat for energy (fat, then eventually muscle..which noone wants to happen) THEN you've got real problems. I'll probably get a good bashing from the starvation mode police for this, but I'm a big girl, I can take it :P

    Unfortunately, too large of a deficit results in the latter more than the former...and IMHO, eating below BMR is almost always "too large of a deficit". I'm a big proponent of eating as much as possible while making progress towards the goal instead of as little as possible...because I believe the metabolism adjusts to the calorie intake (and activity)...or at least it appears this way based on my two years of daily data on myself where I can see the gradual shift in NEAT dependent on whether I'm in a surplus or deficit over a period of time.
    Well, too large of a deficit has a name...anorexia nervosa. I mean eating a decent amount of food, clearly NOT starving yourself. If I do a vegan day (totally not illegal by mfp standards) it's NEARLY impossible to eat all my calories without gorging on peanut butter or almonds. And I'm not going to eat peanut butter by the spoon (the thought makes me want to vomit) just to get calories. The point is, your brain will not cease to function because you didn't meet the BMR...it will get it's energy by converting your fat and/or muscle to usable energy...a simple physiology class will teach that. I do agree that long term living under BMR can cause problems (because clearly eventually you're going to run out of fat/muscle for your body to live on...and the health problems will be there WAY before this happens) but occasionally going below, or even running a bit (little bit, not like 1/2) below BMR is NOT going to kill you.
    *I'd add in a 'trust me, I'm a doctor' at this moment..but I'm not going to...but I AM a nursing student (working on my BSN) and I've taken enough classes regarding the human body to know a little bit about it...clearly I'm here because I didn't follow what I know, but that's another situation all together LOL

    whats wrong with peanut butter by the spoon? Sounds like heaven to me...
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    i eat 1200 cals a day, and im not in starvation mode. im losing weight, definately not starving, and feeling awesome!!! ive lost 71 pounds in 8 months... just about done here with losing in a few more months...

    but you are in starvation mode...you can't lose weight while in starvation mode! Immediately increase your calories to TDEE and deduct 20% ...NOW! < I call those people the TDEE 20 Percenters - lol - I should start a thread about that ...that will piss some people off big time...
  • pluckabee
    pluckabee Posts: 346 Member
    Options
    I think people are just using the phrase wrong.

    When most people say "you are going into starvation mode!!!!" They mean that the person is probably seeing a stall in weightloss from eating too little.

    There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (I've experienced this too) that there is a threshold of calories (unique to every person) that if you go below, you will stall out. People are misinterpreting this as 'starvation mode' because they don't really know all the facts.
  • mycupyourcake
    mycupyourcake Posts: 279 Member
    Options
    I think I must have gone into starvation mode yesterday between morning and afternoon. You know like the kind of starvation mode where the body just hangs onto fat. I woke up and ate nothing. Instead I drank about 3 gallons of water and guess what? When I weighed myself a few hours later I was up about 20 pounds from my morning weigh in! It's not fair, I didn't eat anything! How could I have gained all this weight?!!! I am living proof that starvation mode does occur!