"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

Options
1…78101213…23

Replies

  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    my BMR is below 1200, so the whole 'eating below 1200 equals starvation mode' isn't appropriate for everyone.

    which is why I never mentioned 1200 calories once in this post. some small women do in fact, have a BMR of below 1200 (although relatively rare, you usually have to be sedentary or lightly active and be somewhere below 5' 1" to get there). that doesn't mean you can't go below 1200, 1200 is the generic number that MFP uses to cover it's *kitten* essentially. It's easy enough to change your goals to go below, just be aware that if you're small enough to be below 1200, your deficit needs to be smaller as well usually.
  • Mindful_Trent
    Mindful_Trent Posts: 3,954 Member
    Options
    Bump to revisit later
  • proudandprejudiced
    proudandprejudiced Posts: 127
    Options
    your BMR isn't affected by being sedentary or active, unless you're talking about the amount of muscle. BMR is what your body needs to function, if you did nothing (literally) all day.

    *edit* what i meant by the muscle, is that having muscle burns more calories.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options
    your BMR isn't affected by being sedentary or active, unless you're talking about the amount of muscle. BMR is what your body needs to function, if you did nothing (literally) all day.

    *edit* what i meant by the muscle, is that having muscle burns more calories.

    You are correct, but if your BMR is below 1200, and you're sedentary, and you're body fat % is low, then you would still want to stay at or above it for your deficit. TDEE is partially based on activity level, and deficit is based off TDEE, so having a higher activity level means having a higher TDEE which means your deficit calories would be higher. Not really sure why your worried about your BMR being below 1200 anyway, that's not what that number is cautioning against.

    MFP's caution is that your TDEE - your deficit stays above 1200, nowhere in there is BMR, other than behind the scenes. Really, unless you are calculating your TDEE manually (which you don't need to do, both webmd and MFP will do it for you) you don't even need to know your BMR.
  • volleyball2121
    volleyball2121 Posts: 1
    Options
    wow thank you so much, I literally JUST posted a topic on this and then I saw yours!! would you mind reading my post and replying? if you cant its fine, but you sound like a really excellent source for help.

    I never didnt believe in starvation mode, I didnt even know it existed!
  • BodyCombatGirl73
    BodyCombatGirl73 Posts: 96 Member
    Options
    bump
  • rebeccalray5
    rebeccalray5 Posts: 36
    Options
    Thank you for this post. I was beginning to get really confused and you cleared everything up!
  • gemmaleigh1989
    gemmaleigh1989 Posts: 241 Member
    Options
    My BMR is something like 1200, and it's 1500 using Harris Benedict formula, so if I'm trying to create a deficit to lose weight, I'd aim to eat 1200 calories a day, but then if I exercise it puts my net calories below 1200 and in risk of starvation mode, so my question is this, do I need to eat back my exercise calories like a lot of people suggest?

    I know exercise has many benefits besides calorie burn, but all that aside and just focusing on the calorie burning aspect, doesn't that defeat the purpose of exercise if you just eat back the calories?
  • kaervaak
    kaervaak Posts: 274 Member
    Options
    My BMR is something like 1200, and it's 1500 using Harris Benedict formula, so if I'm trying to create a deficit to lose weight, I'd aim to eat 1200 calories a day, but then if I exercise it puts my net calories below 1200 and in risk of starvation mode, so my question is this, do I need to eat back my exercise calories like a lot of people suggest?

    I know exercise has many benefits besides calorie burn, but all that aside and just focusing on the calorie burning aspect, doesn't that defeat the purpose of exercise if you just eat back the calories?

    No because your deficit is already calculated by MFP. If you're planning on running a 500 cal/day deficit but you exercise for 500 cal and don't eat it back, you'll have a 1000 cal/day deficit which is too high for most people. This triggers many of the effects listed in the opening post if you do it repeatedly.
  • avalonwomon
    avalonwomon Posts: 4
    Options
    I had never heard the term "starvation myth" until I saw this post. But I was so put off by the third paragraph that I didn't want to read the rest - mainly because paragraph 3 was so combative and judgey.

    So I googled "starvation myth" and found out some really interesting information.

    I liked this post - http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

    So many opinions on this but as we are often told, we must do what we think is right for ourselves.

    I know that post well, and I know her well, she was a member on here for a while. Much of that post is dead wrong. I'm sorry I put you off, but if you've been on here long enough and watched the forums, you'll see that there is much controversy about this concept, and much misinformation. I truly am sorry that you considered it combative and judgey, but I post the way I feel, then add my facts to back up my feelings. That's just how I do things.

    best wishes,

    -Banks


    Thanks for clarifying because when I read:

    "...So please don't say "it doesn't work that way for me." That's a lie and you know it. It's more like "I didn't take the time to recognize what the right amount of calories are for me, so trying to eat less (or more) didn't work.""

    So when I read that I thought it sounded kind of 'mean girls' - I think that anyone could say that the starvation mode 'doesn't [apply to] me" and not be lying - the "...and you know it" implies that someone would lie about that deliberately. The next sentence felt the same to me.

    Surely, not all people who simply reject the "starvation mode" theory or fact or whatever, are deliberately lying or just too lazy to recognize what the right amount of calories to eat would be.

    Clearly I misunderstood your tone and/or attitude. :)

    Again - thanks for introducing the phrase "starvation myth" - I learn something new everyday. :)
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    Options



    Thanks for clarifying because when I read:

    "...So please don't say "it doesn't work that way for me." That's a lie and you know it. It's more like "I didn't take the time to recognize what the right amount of calories are for me, so trying to eat less (or more) didn't work.""

    So when I read that I thought it sounded kind of 'mean girls' - I think that anyone could say that the starvation mode 'doesn't [apply to] me" and not be lying - the "...and you know it" implies that someone would lie about that deliberately. The next sentence felt the same to me.

    Surely, not all people who simply reject the "starvation mode" theory or fact or whatever, are deliberately lying or just too lazy to recognize what the right amount of calories to eat would be.

    Clearly I misunderstood your tone and/or attitude. :)

    Again - thanks for introducing the phrase "starvation myth" - I learn something new everyday. :)

    OK call me nothing if not able to admit my faults. Yep, that was a harsh statement, I fully agree. And again, sorry if it was taken as offensive. It was meant as a bit of a shock treatment, but if I truly offended you, or anyone, please accept my apology.

    That said, this statement was born of the thousands of posts and replies on the subject of starvation mode that elicited very heated arguments (both for and against) where people just spouted off random statement without any facts to back them up. This post, was an attempt to give the facts behind the argument. If you've never heard of starvation mode before, I can understand how you may feel jabbed by the statement. I'll say this though, my post won't end the debate, and if you stay on here for a while, you'll see it come up again and again.

    There is no sarcasm in my reply, everything in it is sincerity. Please believe that.

    -Banks
  • billyh333
    billyh333 Posts: 213
    Options
    If humans went into true starvation mode after only skipping 1 meal or not eating for a day we would not have survived this long fact not fiction.

    Hmm, since starvation mode is a process not a condition, not sure what this is referring to. As I said in my post, the first 1 to 2 days, nothing really changes in the first 24 to 48 hours, so while the process of starvation mode begins after your deficit grows to large, hormonal changes don't really start until glycogen reserves get to low. Which takes about 24 hours in the case of fasting, and about 48 hours in the case of underfeeding (enough to deplete the glycogen reserves).

    Were you referring to something else?
    no I was saying people who think that their bodys will go into starvation mode from not eating in like a couple hrs are silly and have not a clue.
  • mpf1
    mpf1 Posts: 1,437 Member
    Options
    bump
  • QueChulaYo
    QueChulaYo Posts: 71
    Options
    bump
  • juliekaiser1988
    juliekaiser1988 Posts: 604 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • sicchi
    sicchi Posts: 189 Member
    Options
    Bump to continue the reading of this thread


    That is so cute!
    just curious what does bump mean lol?

    Whenever you comment on a post, it puts it into your recent read posts on your home page, therefore people "bump" so they can easily find this post later on to read more in depth or whatever

    Still.... cute as... most people just bump!
  • Money2005
    Money2005 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    Thanks!!
  • Sweettart
    Sweettart Posts: 1,331 Member
    Options
    Bump to read later
  • mwcraig34
    mwcraig34 Posts: 359 Member
    Options
    bump to read later!
  • larnsperger
    larnsperger Posts: 161 Member
    Options
    thanks!

Categories