Starvation mode under 100 calories a myth
shadowsaround
Posts: 76
Title should be: Starvation mode under 1200 calories a myth
So many dieters have viewed these words with fear: "starvation mode." Starvation mode is a term used by dieters and dietitians alike to describe the supposed reaction of the body to hold on to every bit of food when calories are severely restricted, causing weight loss to come to a halt.
Dieters are told to keep their calorie intake to a certain level, or risk going into starvation mode. But is starvation mode actually a myth? Let's discuss!
Starvation Mode Myth #1: How Low Can You Go?
Most dieters have seen it written that you should never eat fewer than 1,200 calories per day. This seems to be a magical number that everyone is urged to stick to, no matter their size, activity level or goals.
The starvation mode myth suggests that when you go below 1,200 calories daily, you stop losing weight. Where did this number come from? I'm not sure anyone really knows.
But, it has been suggested that a caloric intake less than this makes it difficult to get the proper nutrition from the food you eat. Therefore, some people suggest that you should only eat less than 1,200 calories per day under the guidance of a doctor.
Starvation Mode Myth #2: Where Did the Myth Come From?
As it turns out, the starvation mode myth originated from a study on starvation, which was conducted in the state of Minnesota. The study was performed on a group of men who were of normal weight.
The study showed that when the men were consistently fed a weight loss diet of 1,500 calories per day, they lost weight. The men lost fat on this diet, and averaged around five to six-percent body fat, which is quite low.
When the men were fed 1,000 calories per day, they continued to lose weight, despite their already low body fat percentage. However, when they ate only 500 calories per day, weight loss began to slow down in proportion to the amount of restricted calories.
So, they DID lose weight when eating the severely restricted diet, but not as quickly as was expected considering the minimal amount of calories consumed. So, there you go! Starvation mode myth was born.
Starvation Mode Myth #3: Why I Don't Buy It.
If starvation mode myth was real, how could anorexics get so thin? Additionally, how could anyone starve to death?
While it is true that the weight loss of the men studied slowed after they were only consuming 500 calories per day, keep in mind that the men were already very thin. Also, 500 calories is MUCH less than the magical 1,200 calorie starvation mode myth number.
Obese individuals who undergo gastric bypass surgery consume only 700 to 900 calories per day, yet still manage to lose weight. This further proves that the starvation mode myth is ONLY a myth!
If you would like to push your weight loss up a notch, why not start a new exercise routine?
So many dieters have viewed these words with fear: "starvation mode." Starvation mode is a term used by dieters and dietitians alike to describe the supposed reaction of the body to hold on to every bit of food when calories are severely restricted, causing weight loss to come to a halt.
Dieters are told to keep their calorie intake to a certain level, or risk going into starvation mode. But is starvation mode actually a myth? Let's discuss!
Starvation Mode Myth #1: How Low Can You Go?
Most dieters have seen it written that you should never eat fewer than 1,200 calories per day. This seems to be a magical number that everyone is urged to stick to, no matter their size, activity level or goals.
The starvation mode myth suggests that when you go below 1,200 calories daily, you stop losing weight. Where did this number come from? I'm not sure anyone really knows.
But, it has been suggested that a caloric intake less than this makes it difficult to get the proper nutrition from the food you eat. Therefore, some people suggest that you should only eat less than 1,200 calories per day under the guidance of a doctor.
Starvation Mode Myth #2: Where Did the Myth Come From?
As it turns out, the starvation mode myth originated from a study on starvation, which was conducted in the state of Minnesota. The study was performed on a group of men who were of normal weight.
The study showed that when the men were consistently fed a weight loss diet of 1,500 calories per day, they lost weight. The men lost fat on this diet, and averaged around five to six-percent body fat, which is quite low.
When the men were fed 1,000 calories per day, they continued to lose weight, despite their already low body fat percentage. However, when they ate only 500 calories per day, weight loss began to slow down in proportion to the amount of restricted calories.
So, they DID lose weight when eating the severely restricted diet, but not as quickly as was expected considering the minimal amount of calories consumed. So, there you go! Starvation mode myth was born.
Starvation Mode Myth #3: Why I Don't Buy It.
If starvation mode myth was real, how could anorexics get so thin? Additionally, how could anyone starve to death?
While it is true that the weight loss of the men studied slowed after they were only consuming 500 calories per day, keep in mind that the men were already very thin. Also, 500 calories is MUCH less than the magical 1,200 calorie starvation mode myth number.
Obese individuals who undergo gastric bypass surgery consume only 700 to 900 calories per day, yet still manage to lose weight. This further proves that the starvation mode myth is ONLY a myth!
If you would like to push your weight loss up a notch, why not start a new exercise routine?
0
Replies
-
Myth or not ... I'm sorry, but I would be the most hungry, angry b*tch you would ever meet if I ate at 1200 or below
Forget that noise
Just my two cents :-)0 -
0 -
Amen.
Kids in Sudan are starving. Someone who falls 100 calories short of their BMR of 2200 is not starving. Even if they do it consistently for a year.0 -
Amen.
Kids in Sudan are starving. Someone who falls 100 calories short of their BMR of 2200 is not starving. Even if they do it consistently for a year.
She wasn't referring to eating a little below BMR of 2200. She was referring to eating less than 1200 calories a day. Big difference0 -
Why eat 1000 calories a day when you can eat 2000 calories a day and still lose the same amount of weight.. Not to mention the weight you will lose probably won't be muscle.. now will you die eating 1000 calories a day, No.. but you will probably plateau and post on these forums about being stuck, or hit your goal weight and be unhappy with your body.. cause who wants to be 130 and have a 50% BF.
Plus this topic is posted daily.
++ Love the cat picture.0 -
HA HA Ha ha aha hahhahahaaaaa.....
What's the point? The OP refers to some study done in some state. She uses no facts. Is she advocating anorexia? Is she into thinspiration?
What's the point of this thread? It looks like some lame high school report cut and pasted off the internet with no references to back up the writer's facts.0 -
You fail to mention all the problems the men in the study developed due to participating in the study. That study has actually been referred to as one of the most inhumane ever performed, and that is why it hasn't been done again (to the extent). The health issues they developed more than overrode the fact that they still lost WEIGHT.0
-
...lemme get my popcorn0
-
Yeah, I'm pretty sure if I ate under 1200 kcal I'd be starving.0
-
^^This. I mean, unless you count weight loss from self-amputation as a good thing.
Edit: in response to Raynne4130 -
I never understand the point of these posts. Do you want more people to starve themselves? What is the goal? I suppose you can lose weight by starving yourself, but it's hardly healthy or likely to lead to long term maintenance of your lower weight.
Yes, some anorexics become very thin through starving themselves. Are you suggesting we emulate them? Anorexia is an illness, it's hardly something to be held up as proof that starvation works in an effort to provide rationalizations for people who refuse to nourish their bodies in the pursuit of thinness (or, as they would often have it, "health").
If your goal is to look like an after photo from the Minnesota starvation experiment, go for it. But I would be interested to know why you would choose that as a goal and why you, and so many others, post in this forum to encourage others to do the same.
As for me, I'll take slow, healthy, sustainable weight loss over constant deprivation any time.0 -
Well, I was referring to the significant amount of scaremongering that initiates as soon as someone falls below the calories recommended by whatever online calorie calculator that person is using.She wasn't referring to eating a little below BMR of 2200. She was referring to eating less than 1200 calories a day. Big difference
Another fair point brought up by the OP: how can 1200 be true for both a 6' 400 lbs person and a 5'2" 160 lbs person? It is but a number that someone somewhere came up with and everyone is happy to repeat.0 -
I don't really buy into "starvation mode" but I do absolutely believe that it is not necessary to starve in order to lose weight and very low calorie diets do not lead to long term success.0
-
uhm you do know "anorexics" as you say don't just ya know be fine and dandy and just don't eat for a bit then get skinny, and you really shouldn't be encouraging that because if you eat less than 1200calories...it can lead to wantin even less and there ya go you have an eating disorder. And them being skinny isn't a good thing, they go through torture everyday so...uhm yea.0
-
0 -
Let's just say starvation mode is a myth, for the sake of argument. Who cares? This gives me license to do...what...exactly? Eat a ridiculously low amount of calories and lose lean muscle mass and feel miserable, but yes, probably lose weight, at least for a while?
I will politely decline.0 -
That GIF is awesome ...
ETA: before I get accused of animal cruelty .... I do not advocate beating animals.
0 -
I never understand the point of these posts. Do you want more people to starve themselves? What is the goal? I suppose you can lose weight by starving yourself, but it's hardly healthy or likely to lead to long term maintenance of your lower weight.
Yes, some anorexics become very thin through starving themselves. Are you suggesting we emulate them? Anorexia is an illness, it's hardly something to be held up as proof that starvation works in an effort to provide rationalizations for people who refuse to nourish their bodies in the pursuit of thinness (or, as they would often have it, "health").
If your goal is to look like an after photo from the Minnesota starvation experiment, go for it. But I would be interested to know why you would choose that as a goal and why you, and so many others, post in this forum to encourage others to do the same.
As for me, I'll take slow, healthy, sustainable weight loss over constant deprivation any time.
THIS. ^^^ If you want to encourage eating disorders, please do it in another forum. This is called my FITNESS pal.
There are impressionable people here who don't need to be told that starving themselves "can, like, totally, work."
Thanks, and goodbye now.0 -
Get off my lawn.0
-
You have successfully critiqued the flaws in your misunderstanding of the topic.
Is it still a strawman if the OP constructed it believing it to be real??0 -
...lemme get my popcorn
Don't leave or you'll miss the best part. I'll share my popcorn :-D0 -
I agree 100 percent to this,0
-
Let's just say starvation mode is a myth, for the sake of argument. Who cares? This gives me license to do...what...exactly? Eat a ridiculously low amount of calories and lose lean muscle mass and feel miserable, but yes, probably lose weight, at least for a while?
I will politely decline.
This. I am averaging just over 2000 calories a day, and losing 1.5 lbs per week. Sure, I could drop that number drastically, but what would the point be? To make myself cranky and miserable, deny myself some of my favorite foods, and lose a larger percentage of lean mass each week?
I've tried to lose weight many times, with my priority being to drop the number on the scale as quickly as possible. And each time I ended up gaining it all back (plus some each time). Slow, steady, and sustainable are good things.0 -
Another fair point brought up by the OP: how can 1200 be true for both a 6' 400 lbs person and a 5'2" 160 lbs person? It is but a number that someone somewhere came up with and everyone is happy to repeat.
The 1200 number is set as the minimum amount of calories for women to get proper nutrition by the American College of Sports Medicine. Men should eat at least 1800 calories.
The reason that so many people on MFP get set at 1200 is because this tool works in a specific way, deducting a certain amount of calories per day from your estimated calorie needs based on how many pounds per week you tell it you want to lose. But to a minimum of 1200, for standard minimum nutrition.0 -
Re: myth number 2.
Can you tell me what happened to the participants of the Minnesota study when they went back to normal eating? What physiological and psychological behaviours did they exhibit?0 -
AH - - I see; I knew you looked familiar:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/807491-fighting-hunger-advice
Are you a superhero? Captain Anorexia?0 -
You fail to mention all the problems the men in the study developed due to participating in the study. That study has actually been referred to as one of the most inhumane ever performed, and that is why it hasn't been done again (to the extent). The health issues they developed more than overrode the fact that they still lost WEIGHT.
The 'problem' that sticks with me in particular is the guy who went crazy and cut off some of his fingers.
Yeah, you'll still lose weight on a 500 calorie a day diet, even if it does slow down a bit as your body desperately tries not to have to eat itself, but the mental price alone is too high to pay.0 -
One of my college professors (biology) explained caloric intake and desired weight to our class and this is how it was explained:
If you want to be 120lbs then multiply that by 10 and that is how many calories you should consume in a day....equals 1200 calories. So whatever your desired weight just multiply that by 10 and there ya have it...your daily caloric intake.
So unless you want to weigh 50lbs I wouldn't eat only 500 calories :indifferent:0 -
One of my college professors (biology) explained caloric intake and desired weight to our class and this is how it was explained:
If you want to be 120lbs then multiply that by 10 and that is how many calories you should consume in a day....equals 1200 calories. So whatever your desired weight just multiply that by 10 and there ya have it...your daily caloric intake.
I weigh 121lbs and eat nearly double that. I think your Professor needs to recheck his studies.0 -
One of my college professors (biology) explained caloric intake and desired weight to our class and this is how it was explained:
If you want to be 120lbs then multiply that by 10 and that is how many calories you should consume in a day....equals 1200 calories. So whatever your desired weight just multiply that by 10 and there ya have it...your daily caloric intake.
I weigh 121lbs and eat nearly double that. I think your Professor needs to recheck his studies.
You obviously have a very fast metabolism. A lot of people that have problems losing weight have a slower metabolic rate and I believe that is what my professor was implying.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions