what is up with starvation mode...
Options
Replies
-
...i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.0 -
skipping meals is one thing but starvation mode is another. I was full and satisfied last night and ended up with not using like 400 calrories and they told me when I closed my diary for the day that I was putting myself in starvation mode. It was not intentional. From now on I am going to eat what I am supposed to so I am satisfied until morning. hate waking up ravenous
ummm that's a joke right?
You have to eat nothing for three days to be in starvation mode...
being four hundred cals below your goal is not starvation mode...
this is what I am talking about people!
Not what this person was saying, but let's add some assumptions to further the discussion...
Are you saying that if someone consistently eats 800 calories that it won't affect their metabolism/energy levels/etc.?
I can get on board occasional under-eating not being a problem...human beings are remarkably resilient...but regardless of what name you give it, I am convinced that chronically eating very low calories has a detrimental effect.
Long term affect would be that their metabolism would in fact slow down..however, I do not agree that metabolic slow down is starvation mode..
Starvation mode is when your body actually starts turning on itself for energy...fat stores are exhausted and the body starts using muscle for energy...then you are in true starvation mode...
or am I just playing "semantics"0 -
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....
Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?
IMHO, for those for whom 1200 represents too great of a deficit, it can lead to a decrease in metabolism (BMR/NEAT), decrease in LBM, decrease in energy, etc. Many have posted their experiences with that approach and their stories are sobering...mental fog, physical issues (such as hair falling out, sunken eyes, skin issues, etc.) For those who ignore nutritional requirements...(or for lack of a better phrase, "do it wrong")...it can lead to nutritional deficiencies. (And yes, I acknowledge that people eating more can also have nutritional deficiencies...but I stand by my claim that eating fewer calories makes that more likely.) And then there's the issue with long-term results/adherence to a more restrictive diet...although I believe some recent research may be challenging that position.
Now for those people for whom 1200 is an appropriate amount, and assuming they "do it right", then there are no problems. I believe these people are a relatively small percentage though...(but what they lack in numbers, they seem to make up for in forum zeal).
Just so we're clear, I have no problems with people who succeed on 1200 calories. My approach to the topic, however, is that people should start by finding the *most* calories then can eat while still making progress towards their goals instead of the *least* calories. I believe it is likely healthier, more likely to succeed, more likely to like their end result, more energy, etc...
...but I'm a little off-topic for this thread, so I'll stop here.
You can de-rail my threads anytime joff...LOL0 -
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....
Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?
IMHO, for those for whom 1200 represents too great of a deficit, it can lead to a decrease in metabolism (BMR/NEAT), decrease in LBM, decrease in energy, etc. Many have posted their experiences with that approach and their stories are sobering...mental fog, physical issues (such as hair falling out, sunken eyes, skin issues, etc.) For those who ignore nutritional requirements...(or for lack of a better phrase, "do it wrong")...it can lead to nutritional deficiencies. (And yes, I acknowledge that people eating more can also have nutritional deficiencies...but I stand by my claim that eating fewer calories makes that more likely.) And then there's the issue with long-term results/adherence to a more restrictive diet...although I believe some recent research may be challenging that position.
Now for those people for whom 1200 is an appropriate amount, and assuming they "do it right", then there are no problems. I believe these people are a relatively small percentage though...(but what they lack in numbers, they seem to make up for in forum zeal).
Just so we're clear, I have no problems with people who succeed on 1200 calories. My approach to the topic, however, is that people should start by finding the *most* calories then can eat while still making progress towards their goals instead of the *least* calories. I believe it is likely healthier, more likely to succeed, more likely to like their end result, more energy, etc...
...but I'm a little off-topic for this thread, so I'll stop here.
You can de-rail my threads anytime joff...LOL
Heh. I try not to because it annoys me when other people do it...but sometimes, these topics just take on a life of their own and all but force me down these paths.0 -
I swear if I see one more person say that "because you are only eating 1200 calories a day you are in starvation mode"...
no no no no no and no ..you can't eat 1200 calories a day and be in starvation mode. You have to eat nothing for 72 hours and even then the effects are minimal...
sighs, I swear my mission on MFP is to correct this BS ...oh and I used to believe in this crap myself too ....
whats the lamest starvation mode claim you have seen?
I agree0 -
skipping meals is one thing but starvation mode is another. I was full and satisfied last night and ended up with not using like 400 calrories and they told me when I closed my diary for the day that I was putting myself in starvation mode. It was not intentional. From now on I am going to eat what I am supposed to so I am satisfied until morning. hate waking up ravenous
ummm that's a joke right?
You have to eat nothing for three days to be in starvation mode...
being four hundred cals below your goal is not starvation mode...
this is what I am talking about people!
Not what this person was saying, but let's add some assumptions to further the discussion...
Are you saying that if someone consistently eats 800 calories that it won't affect their metabolism/energy levels/etc.?
I can get on board occasional under-eating not being a problem...human beings are remarkably resilient...but regardless of what name you give it, I am convinced that chronically eating very low calories has a detrimental effect.
Long term affect would be that their metabolism would in fact slow down..however, I do not agree that metabolic slow down is starvation mode..
Starvation mode is when your body actually starts turning on itself for energy...fat stores are exhausted and the body starts using muscle for energy...then you are in true starvation mode...
or am I just playing "semantics"
Then I think we have just reconciled what earlier seemed to be two opposing views.
I agree with this. The problem is, many people use the phrase "starvation mode" when they mean "metabolic slow-down". I have no problem with the position that the phrase is incorrect, as long as we're on the same page that "metabolic slow-down" is still something worth warning/advising people of.0 -
I swear if I see one more person say that "because you are only eating 1200 calories a day you are in starvation mode"...
no no no no no and no ..you can't eat 1200 calories a day and be in starvation mode. You have to eat nothing for 72 hours and even then the effects are minimal...
sighs, I swear my mission on MFP is to correct this BS ...oh and I used to believe in this crap myself too ....
whats the lamest starvation mode claim you have seen?
Mine favourite is "you will store fat" - really? If the body needs energy it will dip into that fat if there is no other means at its disposal, that is how weightloss works.
One other one was somebody asking that if they didn't eat their daily allotment of calories for one day, they would go into starvation mode and it was worrying them - really? Not being funny, but this person had a surplus of energy stored and was not starving.0 -
I luv it when someone says to eat certain foods cause they help you burn Fat as they provide “Negative” calories. Negative??? Really???0
-
[/quote]...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).
[/quote]
Is that East coast time?? or...
0 -
I swear if I see one more person say that "because you are only eating 1200 calories a day you are in starvation mode"...
no no no no no and no ..you can't eat 1200 calories a day and be in starvation mode. You have to eat nothing for 72 hours and even then the effects are minimal...
sighs, I swear my mission on MFP is to correct this BS ...oh and I used to believe in this crap myself too ....
whats the lamest starvation mode claim you have seen?
I work in Humanitarian Aid for the PanAmerican branch of the WHO and we consider 800 calories " hunger ", 700 calories starvation and 600-500 calories " extreme starvation ".
Unfortunately I have not been able to find out why 1200 calories are " starvation mode " here in MFP. If someone could enlighten me, I'd be grateful.0 -
...i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.0 -
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.
I am interested to know exactly what anybody's body uses for energy when there is a deficit in the daily calories.
There is no scientific evidence regarding eating too little stops weightloss, to do so violates the laws of physics.0 -
[/quote]
i started at a little over 1400, and saw very little loss, less than a pound a week, then dropped to 1300 ish, where i started losing a pound a week, and then again to 1200 where i steadily have lost 2 pounds a week since september. i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I'm talking about!!! 1200 calories of good, healthy food WILL keep your full and fuel your body effectively. Your body is 'starving' more if you fill it with 1500 calories of crap, than if you fill it will 1200 (or even less *GASP*) of healthy foods.0 -
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....
Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?
If anybody wishes to go on a 1200 calories per day eating diet/plan etc call it what you want, there is only one rule you need to remember:
Ensure you eat enough vitamins, minerals, protein, carbs and fats and that all the food is nutritious and not empty rubbish.
Do this and it is fine, but use up those 1200 daily calories on confectionary, sweets and cakes and after a while you will notice detrimental effects - THIS is the part that becomes detrimental, other than that, 1200 calories per day is okay.0 -
You really need to take age into consideration also. It is recommended that I eat 1200 a day, however I can not lose at that. I'm currently eating around 1000-1100 per day and am doing ok (I'm just in my third week). I messed my metabolism up with the Adkins diet, and I'm now 61..... It makes a big difference when trying to lose weight. I feel good and have great energy at just 8lbs lost, so I'm pretty happy with what I'm eating.0
-
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....
Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?
If anybody wishes to go on a 1200 calories per day eating diet/plan etc call it what you want, there is only one rule you need to remember:
Ensure you eat enough vitamins, minerals, protein, carbs and fats and that all the food is nutritious and not empty rubbish.
Do this and it is fine, but use up those 1200 daily calories on confectionary, sweets and cakes and after a while you will notice detrimental effects - THIS is the part that becomes detrimental, other than that, 1200 calories per day is okay.[/b[
"1200 calories per day is okay"...for whom? For everyone and anyone?
My position is that 1200 calories per day is okay for some but absolutely not okay for others. And yet you are advocating that it is okay for anyone? I strongly disagree.0 -
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.
I am interested to know exactly what anybody's body uses for energy when there is a deficit in the daily calories.
There is no scientific evidence regarding eating too little stops weightloss, to do so violates the laws of physics.
I'm not saying it stops weight loss. I'm saying that, over time, it will lead to a decrease in metabolism (MBR/NEAT) which will make healthy weight loss more difficult to manage because it will reduce the number of calories the individual can eat and still lose weight which can make getting sufficient nutrient more difficult.0 -
...i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.
im assuming this is not directed at me, since i am no where near my first month into it?0 -
its not fake its real
because you are only eating 1200 calories a day you are in starvation mode"...
thats why u gain weight u need to eat more caleries..............0 -
...i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.
im assuming this is not directed at me, since i am no where near my first month into it?
Correct...but no assumption was really necessary. My post was in response to the last post quoted, which was rosemary. Generally, that's how the MFP forums work. Unless otherwise specified, responses will be to the last post quoted.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions