You keep saying that word...

Options
PurpleEpiphany
PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
in Health and Weight Loss
I do not think it means what you think it means.

I've been on MFP for about three months now, and I love this website. So far, the only real down side I've seen is the massive amount of bad information on the forums. Yes, I understand that this is the nature of forums in general, but I do wish people would stop to check facts rather than simply parroting something someone else said. The biggest one I see all the time is "starvation mode".

Yes, starvation mode exists, but it doesn't mean that someone who drops below 1200 calories (I see this mentioned often as some kind of 'cut off', even though numbers should vary with each person) will magically stop losing weight. I've linked the following in several threads, because I think it does the best job of explaining how starvation mode ACTUALLY works, and how it might apply to someone who is attempting to lose weight. It also talks about some real concerns for people who are heavily restricting calories, and happens to have been written by an MFP user with the same concerns I have regarding misinformation on the forums. So here you go:

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html
«1

Replies

  • Vansy
    Vansy Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    I think the real thing is: Starvation mode doesn't happen in a day.

    I use intermittent fasting and I haven't hit a starvation mode. I'm still losing weight and getting in better shape and gaining muscle. I only fast 1 or 2 days per week (typically one day). But yes, totally agree. Tons of people (and I'm sure I'm included at one point or another) say something they believe to be true.....but I also think that people learn as they go. I know I've changed my thoughts/opinions as I've gained more knowledge about nutrition and fitness over the past few years.
  • McLifterPants
    McLifterPants Posts: 457 Member
    Options
    People on here misuse the term "starvation mode" a lot, it is true. However, the point that most of them are trying to convey - that if you under-eat you can slow down your metabolism and burn muscle rather than fat - is accurate. The semantics may be incorrect, but the point that they are trying to make is not.
  • PurpleEpiphany
    PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
    Options
    You have to get down to about 25% of your needed calories to hit starvation mode (where your metabolism slows down), at least in most cases. That's what I'm saying, is that they are incorrect in how they're applying it. It takes far fewer calories to reach starvation mode than most people assume. The article I linked has the actual math.
  • Long_and_Lean
    Long_and_Lean Posts: 175 Member
    Options
    I love you for posting this. :flowerforyou:

    SCIENCE! it works, *****es.
  • Koldnomore
    Koldnomore Posts: 1,613 Member
    Options
    That article says exactly what people here say..If you don't eat enough your weight loss will slow down and you will feel like crap.. SO..what are you saying? The article you linked supports what people here are saying. EAT ENOUGH or you lose less.

    Also the author of that article has had surgery so yeah..she's supposed to eat like a bird, that's what happens when you have no stomach. For normal people you can't just eat 700 calories and lose as much weight as someone who has had surgery.

    So for everyone who isn't eating please read the article and do what it says..EAT more or your weight loss slows down.
  • PurpleEpiphany
    PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
    Options
    That's an extreme oversimplification of what it says. The article states that your metabolism will slow down slightly if you go below a certain percentage of your required calories. I'm not saying that anyone should stop eating.

    What bothers me is when someone posts something like "I'm eating 1400 calories per day and not losing weight!" and the immediate response is "You're in starvation mode, eat more!" That advice isn't just not helpful, it's incorrect in many situations. It isn't the people who are saying "eat enough" that bother me, those people are 100% correct. It's the people automatically jumping to "eat more" and citing starvation mode as the reason who are the problem.

    The article states that you have to eat far fewer calories than most people think before you reach starvation mode, and also that for obese people the numbers have to drop even lower before your metabolism actually does slow down.

    As I said, it isn't that I think people should stop eating (extreme calorie restriction can be dangerous for many reasons, which she also states). The reason I posted this is to show that people crying 'starvation mode' as the reason every time someone is restricting calories and not losing weight are simply misinformed. I see people on the boards all the time recommending that people force themselves to 'eat back' exercise calories even if they have enough energy and aren't feeling hungry, to avoid 'starvation mode', which makes no sense at all.

    I would also like to add that no, I'm not advocating extreme calorie restriction. It's dangerous even under a doctor's supervision, and people who do it generally don't keep the weight off because it isn't sustainable. I just don't like to see people throwing out 'starvation mode' as the answer every time someone says they aren't losing weight, when it very, very rarely actually applies.
  • bratleen
    bratleen Posts: 60 Member
    Options
    Inconceivable!
  • biffdaddy
    biffdaddy Posts: 17
    Options
    For almost a year and a half I ate between 1500-1800 Cal. I am 6'4'' and weighed at the time around 275. I was also working out everyday. I lost weight at first but over time I slowly gained it back. Nothing in my diet had changed and my workouts were more intense. My body was telling itself to store fat. Additionally, I found myself being able to do fewer and fewer push-ups/sit-ups. It seems that I was consuming muscle mass during workout instead of fat reserves.

    In the past 6 months or so, I have slightly increased my daily intake to an avg 1800-2000 Cal. I have lost weight and inches since doing so.
  • kellybean14
    kellybean14 Posts: 237 Member
    Options
    Inconceivable!


    HAHAHAHA!! yesssssssss...! :bigsmile:
  • PurpleEpiphany
    PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
    Options
    See, I would consider that a case of needing to fuel your workouts by eating more. Your body was telling you it didn't have enough fuel, and you responded accordingly. That works for some people, and that's great. It just isn't ALWAYS the answer, that's the only point I'm trying to make here.

    The really confusing bit to me is how people cite 1200 calories as a magic number. I was just reading a thread where several people warned against the dangers of going below that. The thing is, I'm 5'1. If I eat 2000 calories per day I blow up like a balloon. You're 14 inches taller than me, and obviously are going to need more fuel than I do...so how is that one number somehow the boundary for everyone? It just doesn't make sense.
  • joecollins9385
    joecollins9385 Posts: 355 Member
    Options
    I love you for posting this. :flowerforyou:

    SCIENCE! it works, *****es.

    ^^^this
  • GrandmaJody
    GrandmaJody Posts: 140 Member
    Options
    uh oh,,,,
  • VorJoshigan
    VorJoshigan Posts: 1,106 Member
    Options
    You have to get down to about 25% of your needed calories to hit starvation mode (where your metabolism slows down), at least in most cases. That's what I'm saying, is that they are incorrect in how they're applying it. It takes far fewer calories to reach starvation mode than most people assume. The article I linked has the actual math.
    I totally agree that "starvation mode" is thrown around WAY too much around here, and that 1200 is a silly arbitrary cutoff, but I think that the article you posted oversimplifies the metabolic response to varying levels of caloric intake. It also does not take into account where the body might get energy from (muscles) if it's not getting enough from food.

    I don't think the scientists are even really confident about how it works. I can not assume that the people who say they have bumped up their calories & gotten out of a stall have been lying.
  • PurpleEpiphany
    PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
    Options
    You have to get down to about 25% of your needed calories to hit starvation mode (where your metabolism slows down), at least in most cases. That's what I'm saying, is that they are incorrect in how they're applying it. It takes far fewer calories to reach starvation mode than most people assume. The article I linked has the actual math.
    I totally agree that "starvation mode" is thrown around WAY too much around here, and that 1200 is a silly arbitrary cutoff, but I think that the article you posted oversimplifies the metabolic response to varying levels of caloric intake. It also does not take into account where the body might get energy from (muscles) if it's not getting enough from food.

    I don't think the scientists are even really confident about how it works. I can not assume that the people who say they have bumped up their calories & gotten out of a stall have been lying.

    Good point. I guess it just bugs me when people throw it out there as the answer to everything.
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    See, I would consider that a case of needing to fuel your workouts by eating more. Your body was telling you it didn't have enough fuel, and you responded accordingly. That works for some people, and that's great. It just isn't ALWAYS the answer, that's the only point I'm trying to make here.

    The really confusing bit to me is how people cite 1200 calories as a magic number. I was just reading a thread where several people warned against the dangers of going below that. The thing is, I'm 5'1. If I eat 2000 calories per day I blow up like a balloon. You're 14 inches taller than me, and obviously are going to need more fuel than I do...so how is that one number somehow the boundary for everyone? It just doesn't make sense.

    I don't have a clue about starvation mode...but I'm 5'2 and have my cal set at 1750 and lose just fine. Trying to stay on 1200 was insane and left me stalled for months. Short doesn't automatically mean you have to eat little amounts.
  • PurpleEpiphany
    PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
    Options
    You're right, short doesn't mean you have to eat little amounts, there are many more factors. And for the record, I don't eat 1200 calories either. That's my entire point, though...there's more to it than just a number. For some people the 'magic' number they probably shouldn't go below to adequately fuel their bodies may be higher than that, and for a few it may be lower.
  • SmileyFaceGuy
    SmileyFaceGuy Posts: 201
    Options
    That article says exactly what people here say..If you don't eat enough your weight loss will slow down and you will feel like crap.. SO..what are you saying? The article you linked supports what people here are saying. EAT ENOUGH or you lose less.

    I'm not arguing whether the article is correct or not, but that^ is not what the article says. It says your metabolism will slow down, while your weight loss continues to increase, but at a lesser amount per calorie.
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    I think the 1200 number is thrown around because that is where MFP seems to default most people. The problem as I see it happens when you throw in exercise and suddenly you're barely netting 400-500 cal a day. Yes MFP adds those cal back to your total but many people..and I was guilty of dong this, think..well if I can lose x number of pounds on 1200...I will lose more not eating back my exercise calories. That just sets you up for a cycle of netting less and less.
  • PurpleEpiphany
    PurpleEpiphany Posts: 96
    Options
    I think the 1200 number is thrown around because that is where MFP seems to default most people. The problem as I see it happens when you throw in exercise and suddenly you're barely netting 400-500 cal a day. Yes MFP adds those cal back to your total but many people..and I was guilty of dong this, think..well if I can lose x number of pounds on 1200...I will lose more not eating back my exercise calories. That just sets you up for a cycle of netting less and less.

    True. And I can see where it's important to caution against dangerously restricting calories, which people do even if they know it isn't healthy.

    I do have a question though. For those of you who've boosted calories and found that it helped weight loss. Or a couple of questions.

    1. Did you find that you were more active because you had more energy from consuming more calories?

    2. Did you add calories by upping the portions on what you were already eating, or did you add something else to your diet (protein shakes, that sort of thing) ?

    *edited for spelling...
  • birdieaz
    birdieaz Posts: 448 Member
    Options
    My experience with upping calories, yes I absolutely have more energy. However I haven't exercised at all the past 2 weeks because I wanted to see how my body would react to more calories without activity. I gained 3lbs but now that has in just the past 4 days come off and I'm right back to 120lbs..still with no exercise. This is something that I had to do in order to break through the fear of eating more. I'm fine and nothing horrible happened LOL

    My plan is to resume Insanity on Monday and add an additional 200 cal to bring up my cal to 1950.

    I've incorporated some foods that are high in protein...like cottage cheese, upped my portions of some food..ie 2 eggs instead of 1, adding an extra tbs of pb to my protein shakes. It adds up.

Categories