"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

yancymichele · September 2012

bump

SHBoss1673 · September 2012

I'm proof that starvation mode exists. I lost close to 60lbs the right way by eating rougly 1400 calories and doing moderate exercise. When my weight loss slowed I began eating 1200 calories and burned 800 6 days a week (only netting 400). I became obsessed with the scale and the numbers that it showed. With all that hard work I only dropped only 10lbs. This struggle continued for about four months and then I noticed my hair was thinning, I was extremely tired, and my period had stopped. I realised this was abnormal and that I should not be going through such a struggle to get healthy. So about a month ago I ate more. I made sure to net at least 1200 cals a day and gained (wait for it) 12lbs in less than two weeks! Then I upped my calories to NET at 1400 two weeks ago and now I've finally stopped putting on weight. I feel so much better and have way more energy. A few months ago I went to see a dr and she said my TSH levels were on the low side and borderlined the normal range. Last week I had more blood drawn and it showed a massive improvement in my TSH levels (T3 and T4) Thank you, Banks, for bringing this informative and scary realisation to the attention of MFPals.

Wishing you all a happy and healthy weight loss!

This is very scary and enlightening at the same time. I've been on MFP about 5 months, never eating back cals and usually way under my allotted cals (around 1000) While I lost quite a bit quickly, my weight has plateaued and my instinct is to eat less. Now I realize that I need to eat more, based on this info (Thanks Banks!) But the fear of putting on weight has me stuck in a vicious cycle. If I up my cals to 1200-1400 a day it sounds like I'll add on all the weight I just lost. But if I don't up my cals I'll be in Starvation mode (or might be already.) I'm so confused as to how to do this properly without a huge initial gain. Maybe eat an extra 100 cals a day and up it slowly over a few weeks?? What do you suggest. I would find it more than a little discouraging to pack on lbs now after a lovely loss.
Thanks in advance!!!

that's what I would do. Depending on the severity of the deficit, and the length of time, I'd slowly work about 100 calories every 2 weeks back in, to about, or just below maintenance, then give it 2 to 4 weeks to settle, then begin at a smaller deficit level. Every person is different though, some react better to deficits than others, so it's really hard to put actual numbers on this, you just have to be diligent and not let small gains dishearten you.

Lyra89 · September 2012

Oh, I'm currently 128lbs...not sure of measurements, but think my waist is around 27 inches (last time I checked!)

SHBoss1673 · September 2012

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. I've been working on this weight loss thing for over 9 months, started with low carb/high protein moved to low calories and after reading many posts after a long plateau, I've finally figured this out. I took the time to search out information on this site which is what put me moving in the right direction. I have many MFP friends who still stick to the 1200 cals that MFP sets for them and can't fathom eating more. I wish more people would take the time to read up on all of the great information this site has to share.

Thanks again!

just think of how jealous your friends will be when you're eating 1800 to 2000 calories, and still losing weight (and are actually HAPPY with and proud of your nutrition). When I tell people how much my maintenance is, they don't believe I can eat that much and still maintain. As a man, my TDEE is higher than a woman, but even when I was 55 lbs overweight and obese, I never ate below 1800 calories, and was usually over 2000 on workout days. And I'm extremely healthy now, and never felt starved (well, except for my experiment with calorie cycling I did about 8 months back, that's tough stuff let me tell you, not for the faint of heart).

jet221 · September 2012

bump

Topsking2010 · September 2012

Bump

SHBoss1673 · September 2012

Oh, I'm currently 128lbs...not sure of measurements, but think my waist is around 27 inches (last time I checked!)

well, it's very generic calculation, but 5'5" and 128 means you have very little to lose, I'd be focusing on Body Fat % if you were my client, not worrying about weight at all. So before I give any numbers at all I'd say do some research into a local facility where you can get a good baseline BF% (like a dexa machine, or hydrostatic, or bod pod, I'd stay away from bio-electrical impedance, at least for the initial BF% testing, as they can have high degrees of variance for absolute BF%, but are usually fine for deltas).

That being said (and stressing that BF% is much better for someone in your situation, I'd shoot for 16 to 19% as an ultimate goal). You should be above BMR at your numbers, probably expecting to lose less than 1 lb per week (closer to 1/2 lb) I.E. maybe a goal of around 1500 calories or so.

ClareRae · September 2012

Bump!

geebusuk · September 2012

It would be nice if you could have provided links to the research you based your initial post on.
I like to rear the research myself as many times I find that for instance all of the participants in the study were at a different point to where I am - for instance all fit and lean when I was quite over-weight, or all overweight and not very fit when I'm now reasonably lean and fit.

Quick facts to help you:
... (we all lose muscle in deficit, but the percentage lost can be altered with work).

I would be particularly interested to see some data to back up this 'fact'?
Here is some research that contradicts it:

The initial aim of twofold difference in weight-loss rate
was not achieved in all the athletes in FR, resulting in
a weekly weight-loss rate corresponding to 1.0% of

BW rather than 1.4%. However, total LBM increased
significantly more in SR, accompanied by significantly
improved performance in CMJ and all the 1RM tests,
whereas there was no significant increase in LBM or
improvements in performance except in 1RM squat in
FR. Separating weekly gains in LBM and improvements
in strength- and power-related performance, there was
a significant difference between groups in favor of SR.This leads to a general suggestion that athletes who want
to gain LBM and increase strength- and power-related
performance during a weight-loss period combined with
strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of
0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep
LBM might increase their weekly weight-loss rate to
1.0–1.4% of BW

From here: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3519021&d=1310193169
FR=Fast Rate loss, SR=Slow Rate loss

This study relates to 'elite athletes'. From body-building circles the general ancedotal evidence suggests that 'noob gains' as they call them can have even better results.

Certainly from my own experience I have managed to lose weight (16stone to 12stone 8lb) while simultaneously gaining strength (from doing 3x10 bench press on 20kg or so dumb bells to 34kg as an example - moved up appropriately with other lifts too.)
This year's weight loss has seen less strength gains, though still a little I'd say, but also quicker weight loss.

Lyra89 · September 2012

Oh, I'm currently 128lbs...not sure of measurements, but think my waist is around 27 inches (last time I checked!)

well, it's very generic calculation, but 5'5" and 128 means you have very little to lose, I'd be focusing on Body Fat % if you were my client, not worrying about weight at all. So before I give any numbers at all I'd say do some research into a local facility where you can get a good baseline BF% (like a dexa machine, or hydrostatic, or bod pod, I'd stay away from bio-electrical impedance, at least for the initial BF% testing, as they can have high degrees of variance for absolute BF%, but are usually fine for deltas).

That being said (and stressing that BF% is much better for someone in your situation, I'd shoot for 16 to 19% as an ultimate goal). You should be above BMR at your numbers, probably expecting to lose less than 1 lb per week (closer to 1/2 lb) I.E. maybe a goal of around 1500 calories or so.

Thank you SO much xxx

tlroesch72 · September 2012

bump

maritza327 · September 2012

bump

AinatSkram · September 2012

bump so i can read it later b/c I'm off to work now!

mjj79 · September 2012

i just wsish this was true for EVERYONE. I have HONESTLY tried eating more. FOr months at a time I've done BMR or above. ALl I do is gain. I tried the whole metabolism reset. Never stopped gainig. I can ONLY lose on 1000 cals. It's so discouraging to see soooo many people saying you can lose while eating more when i clearly can not. (BTW i have no medical issues. Been checked.)

Anyway, sad b/c i wanna be like you all but i can't afford to eat more and have to go buy a new wardrobe

SHBoss1673 · September 2012

It would be nice if you could have provided links to the research you based your initial post on.
I like to rear the research myself as many times I find that for instance all of the participants in the study were at a different point to where I am - for instance all fit and lean when I was quite over-weight, or all overweight and not very fit when I'm now reasonably lean and fit.

Quick facts to help you:
... (we all lose muscle in deficit, but the percentage lost can be altered with work).

I would be particularly interested to see some data to back up this 'fact'?
Here is some research that contradicts it:

The initial aim of twofold difference in weight-loss rate
was not achieved in all the athletes in FR, resulting in
a weekly weight-loss rate corresponding to 1.0% of

BW rather than 1.4%. However, total LBM increased
significantly more in SR, accompanied by significantly
improved performance in CMJ and all the 1RM tests,
whereas there was no significant increase in LBM or
improvements in performance except in 1RM squat in
FR. Separating weekly gains in LBM and improvements
in strength- and power-related performance, there was
a significant difference between groups in favor of SR.This leads to a general suggestion that athletes who want
to gain LBM and increase strength- and power-related
performance during a weight-loss period combined with
strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of
0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep
LBM might increase their weekly weight-loss rate to
1.0–1.4% of BW

From here: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3519021&d=1310193169
FR=Fast Rate loss, SR=Slow Rate loss

This study relates to 'elite athletes'. From body-building circles the general ancedotal evidence suggests that 'noob gains' as they call them can have even better results.

Certainly from my own experience I have managed to lose weight (16stone to 12stone 8lb) while simultaneously gaining strength (from doing 3x10 bench press on 20kg or so dumb bells to 34kg as an example - moved up appropriately with other lifts too.)
This year's weight loss has seen less strength gains, though still a little I'd say, but also quicker weight loss.

SHBoss1673 · September 2012

i just wsish this was true for EVERYONE. I have HONESTLY tried eating more. FOr months at a time I've done BMR or above. ALl I do is gain. I tried the whole metabolism reset. Never stopped gainig. I can ONLY lose on 1000 cals. It's so discouraging to see soooo many people saying you can lose while eating more when i clearly can not. (BTW i have no medical issues. Been checked.)

Anyway, sad b/c i wanna be like you all but i can't afford to eat more and have to go buy a new wardrobe

if this is the case, then you should be checking with your endo. because unless there's something wrong, then nobody should be gaining weight eating their BMR, that's (by scientific definition) impossible unless there's something wrong internally. I'm not suggesting that what you say isn't true, I'm only saying there's got to be a medical reason for it. And until you find it, you'll continue to be frustrated.

mjj79 · September 2012

THanks! I'll check into that

I really respect all of your advice and the info you provide! (Just wish my body would comply.)

SHBoss1673 · September 2012

It would be nice if you could have provided links to the research you based your initial post on.
I like to rear the research myself as many times I find that for instance all of the participants in the study were at a different point to where I am - for instance all fit and lean when I was quite over-weight, or all overweight and not very fit when I'm now reasonably lean and fit.

Quick facts to help you:
... (we all lose muscle in deficit, but the percentage lost can be altered with work).

I would be particularly interested to see some data to back up this 'fact'?
Here is some research that contradicts it:

The initial aim of twofold difference in weight-loss rate
was not achieved in all the athletes in FR, resulting in
a weekly weight-loss rate corresponding to 1.0% of

BW rather than 1.4%. However, total LBM increased
significantly more in SR, accompanied by significantly
improved performance in CMJ and all the 1RM tests,
whereas there was no significant increase in LBM or
improvements in performance except in 1RM squat in
FR. Separating weekly gains in LBM and improvements
in strength- and power-related performance, there was
a significant difference between groups in favor of SR.This leads to a general suggestion that athletes who want
to gain LBM and increase strength- and power-related
performance during a weight-loss period combined with
strength training should aim for a weekly weight loss of
0.7% of BW, whereas athletes who only want to keep
LBM might increase their weekly weight-loss rate to
1.0–1.4% of BW

From here: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3519021&d=1310193169
FR=Fast Rate loss, SR=Slow Rate loss

This study relates to 'elite athletes'. From body-building circles the general ancedotal evidence suggests that 'noob gains' as they call them can have even better results.

Certainly from my own experience I have managed to lose weight (16stone to 12stone 8lb) while simultaneously gaining strength (from doing 3x10 bench press on 20kg or so dumb bells to 34kg as an example - moved up appropriately with other lifts too.)
This year's weight loss has seen less strength gains, though still a little I'd say, but also quicker weight loss.

I read this study a while ago by the way, and I just re-read it and now remember why it's not really significant to the topic of starvation mode.

two important factors stand out (besides the body chemistry issue of elite athletes).

1) the two groups ate at TDEE-30% (for the fast weight loss) and TDEE-19%(for the slower weight loss), neither of these would qualify as extreme weight loss for athletes as an athlete by definition would have a BMR of only about 65% of their TDEE thus they are eating more than they absolutely need which would qualify these levels as moderate or slightly agressive, but not extreme.
and
2) the following statement is a big piece to note " There were 5–7 daily
meals and snacks and no meal plan below 1,500 kcal/day." <-- directly quoted from the study. as you can see, these people ate well, and nobody ate low calorie counts, despite their being many women in the study, none of those women ate below 1500 kcal per day.

FitCowgirl8 · September 2012

great post! That really helps me to understand it all better. I just upped my calories so this helps me feel that I am on the right track

okidoki7 · September 2012

bump....will read through later :happy:

"Starvation mode", exercise calories, dillema?

Replies

Categories