Please stop saying everything is starvation mode...

Options
1…456810

Replies

  • FitBeto
    FitBeto Posts: 2,121 Member
    Options
    This post gave me cancer
  • BrownEyeAngel
    BrownEyeAngel Posts: 331 Member
    Options
    I agree with you!
  • Missjulesdid
    Missjulesdid Posts: 1,444 Member
    Options
    And starvation mode really isn't something that morbidly obese people need to concern themselves with.. As long as you're getting proper nutrients and protein and at least a small amount of fat, you're good to go.. Your body KNOWS it's fat, Its' JOB is to release the fat in times of caloric deficit. I've lost 35 pounds recently on a SUPERVISED high protein VLCD and had my muscle mass measured and I HAVEN'T lost muscle... Now I WILL lose muscle at some point in my journey because my body won't require as much because it doesn't have to haul around 300 pounds everywhere.. but for now, I'm maintaining my muscle perfectly well on 800 calories (mostly protein).
  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    Options
    It is possible to be consuming less than your BMR or 1200 calories or whatever you believe your magic number needs to be to lose weight, but still not be malnourished and therefore not in "starvation mode".

    You would actually need to sit down and configure your Kcals with a dietician to determine your nutritional status.

    It's not just lack of calories that defines starvation, it is lack of nutrients in those calories. Are you eating "good" or "bad".

    It is possible for an obese person to be malnourished but that's a whole different can of worms... :glasses:

    But the slowing of metabolism is not a myth. Maybe it needs a snazzy new name like "Conservation mode," but the fact remains that after extended time of calorie cutting, your BMR drops, and can drop fairly significantly. The "Starvation mode" experiment found drops of up to 40%; other research I've seen using smaller calorie deficits found drops of 10-25%. If you use the 40% number, it's pretty easy for a woman to drop her BMR to less than 1000, meaning that you're doing all that self-denial and not actually achieving much of a total deficit.

    Well, let's get that petition circulating to change the name to "Anything-But-Starvation-Mode" :wink:
  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    Options
    And starvation mode really isn't something that morbidly obese people need to concern themselves with.. As long as you're getting proper nutrients and protein and at least a small amount of fat, you're good to go.. Your body KNOWS it's fat, Its' JOB is to release the fat in times of caloric deficit. I've lost 35 pounds recently on a SUPERVISED high protein VLCD and had my muscle mass measured and I HAVEN'T lost muscle... Now I WILL lose muscle at some point in my journey because my body won't require as much because it doesn't have to haul around 300 pounds everywhere.. but for now, I'm maintaining my muscle perfectly well on 800 calories (mostly protein).

    Case in point
  • primalchaos
    primalchaos Posts: 135 Member
    Options
    Under eating can lead to a rant however - news at 11.
  • asmallermesoon
    asmallermesoon Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    So when you say very low calorie diets, how many calories are we talking about? under 1000?750? 500?
  • captndalton
    captndalton Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    "starvation mode' is an excuse people use to eat more often. Starving would be good for a lot of people.
  • CristinaL1983
    CristinaL1983 Posts: 1,119 Member
    Options
    So when you say very low calorie diets, how many calories are we talking about? under 1000?750? 500?

    VLCD is used to refer to calories under 800. In some studies, they use as low as 400. BDD (balanced daily deficit) or LCD (low calorie diet) is used to refer to calories between 1000 and 1200. (This is specifically how they are referred to in scientific studies.) VLCD should only be used under the careful supervision (and direction) of a doctor as it is very hard to get proper nutrients.

    1000-1200 is referred to a balanced daily deficit because it is much easier to get to appropriate nutrients.
  • dfonte
    dfonte Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    I just thought this thread was starving for another post. I didn't want it to go into a catabolic state.
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Options
    "starvation mode' is an excuse people use to eat more often. Starving would be good for a lot of people.

    REALLY? Last I checked the major principle underlying "starvation mode" has nothing to do with meal frequency and is almost entirely based on caloric intake.
  • annepage
    annepage Posts: 585 Member
    Options
    I swear if I see one more thread where someone says that someone is in "starvation mode" because they missed snack 2 or are eating 1200 calories a day I am going to have a melt down.

    You have to not eat ANYTHING for 72 hours for your body to to into starvation mode and start turing to muscle to for energy. And even then the effect is pretty minima. Martin Beckham does a great job of laying out all the research on his web site www.leangains.com.

    so if you skip breakfast you are not in starvation mode...if you do not eat an apple at 2pm you are not in starvation mode.

    There are plenty of people out there (myself included) who skip breakfast, train fasted, and have our largest meal post workout and we are not in starvation mode. I have lost 3% body fat using leangains 18/6 which is an 18 hour fast and a six hour eating window.

    Under eating can lead to a possible plateau but it does not mean you are in starvation mode.

    Well said.
  • dliz908
    dliz908 Posts: 25 Member
    Options
    I swear if I see one more thread where someone says that someone is in "starvation mode" because they missed snack 2 or are eating 1200 calories a day I am going to have a melt down.

    You have to not eat ANYTHING for 72 hours for your body to to into starvation mode and start turing to muscle to for energy. And even then the effect is pretty minima. Martin Beckham does a great job of laying out all the research on his web site www.leangains.com.

    so if you skip breakfast you are not in starvation mode...if you do not eat an apple at 2pm you are not in starvation mode.

    There are plenty of people out there (myself included) who skip breakfast, train fasted, and have our largest meal post workout and we are not in starvation mode. I have lost 3% body fat using leangains 18/6 which is an 18 hour fast and a six hour eating window.

    Under eating can lead to a possible plateau but it does not mean you are in starvation mode.

    Love this post.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    It is possible to be consuming less than your BMR or 1200 calories or whatever you believe your magic number needs to be to lose weight, but still not be malnourished and therefore not in "starvation mode".

    You would actually need to sit down and configure your Kcals with a dietician to determine your nutritional status.

    It's not just lack of calories that defines starvation, it is lack of nutrients in those calories. Are you eating "good" or "bad".

    It is possible for an obese person to be malnourished but that's a whole different can of worms... :glasses:

    But the slowing of metabolism is not a myth. Maybe it needs a snazzy new name like "Conservation mode," but the fact remains that after extended time of calorie cutting, your BMR drops, and can drop fairly significantly. The "Starvation mode" experiment found drops of up to 40%; other research I've seen using smaller calorie deficits found drops of 10-25%. If you use the 40% number, it's pretty easy for a woman to drop her BMR to less than 1000, meaning that you're doing all that self-denial and not actually achieving much of a total deficit.

    Well, let's get that petition circulating to change the name to "Anything-But-Starvation-Mode" :wink:

    how about we call it bull **** mode?
  • jen81uk
    jen81uk Posts: 177 Member
    Options
    I haven't read all the posts so I apologise if I'm repeating anything. Eating under 1200 calories continuously is bad for your body fact, to say it isn't is just ridiculous! Eating 1200 will prob be ok if you are a healthy weight or have a lean body mass, I aim for 1500-1600 and am still losing my last few lbs. But will need to eat more to tone and maintain. But this app is also aimed at people who have a lot to lose and if they eat 1200 or less then their body will think it's being starved and will hold on to fat. I don't think that is promoting a healthy lifestyle, it's just encouraging people to fail, as they will get demotivated when they don't see the lbs come off for the effort put in!!
  • Mustang_Susie
    Mustang_Susie Posts: 7,045 Member
    Options
    It is possible to be consuming less than your BMR or 1200 calories or whatever you believe your magic number needs to be to lose weight, but still not be malnourished and therefore not in "starvation mode".

    You would actually need to sit down and configure your Kcals with a dietician to determine your nutritional status.

    It's not just lack of calories that defines starvation, it is lack of nutrients in those calories. Are you eating "good" or "bad".

    It is possible for an obese person to be malnourished but that's a whole different can of worms... :glasses:

    But the slowing of metabolism is not a myth. Maybe it needs a snazzy new name like "Conservation mode," but the fact remains that after extended time of calorie cutting, your BMR drops, and can drop fairly significantly. The "Starvation mode" experiment found drops of up to 40%; other research I've seen using smaller calorie deficits found drops of 10-25%. If you use the 40% number, it's pretty easy for a woman to drop her BMR to less than 1000, meaning that you're doing all that self-denial and not actually achieving much of a total deficit.

    Well, let's get that petition circulating to change the name to "Anything-But-Starvation-Mode" :wink:

    how about we call it bull **** mode?

    Okay, we have two nominations:

    A) Conservation Mode
    B) bull**** mode

    Anyone else care to make a suggestion?
  • captndalton
    captndalton Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    "starvation mode' is an excuse people use to eat more often. Starving would be good for a lot of people.

    REALLY? Last I checked the major principle underlying "starvation mode" has nothing to do with meal frequency and is almost entirely based on caloric intake.

    ha ha ,.. what!? Surely you can read between the lines. When someone continually eats, there's an inference that they're going to take in more calories. Put your dictionary up.

    People aren't eating more calories at each meal so they don't 'starve', they just eat more often. That's how it is.
  • hockeymomrw
    hockeymomrw Posts: 35 Member
    Options
    I am glad you wrote this and posted it. I have had several people approach me with warnings of 'starvation mode'. I have been listening to my sister instead of them. She used the 1200 calories a day as a guideline, sometimes more and sometimes less. She lost 65 pounds over a reasonable amount of time, and has kept it off for more than a year. I try to stick to 1200 calories per day and have at least 5 fruits/veggies per day, and lots of lean protein. I rarely feel hungry and have more energy than I have had in years. Feel like I could run forever on my treadmill. I am not sure about everyone else but the 1200 calorie per day is really working for me so far and I am going to stick with it because I am getting great results!
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    I just thought this thread was starving for another post. I didn't want it to go into a catabolic state.

    hey don't be putting my thread into starvation mode..that is serious *kitten*
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    The My Fitness Pal site doesn't help this conversation in that when you finish entering your food diary for the day, even if you are below your calorie target by 50 calories, it warns you of going into starvation mode.

    This was mine last night, when I was at 1145 calories out of 1200:

    "*Based on your total calories consumed for today, you are eating too few calories. Not only is it difficult to receive adequate nutrition at these calorie levels, but you could also be putting your body into starvation mode. Starvation mode lowers your metabolism and makes weight loss more difficult. We suggest increasing your calorie consumption to 1,200 calories per day minimum."


    I see no problem with that message. Maybe I'm in the minority but I'd rather err on the side of caution and address undereating head on so that it doesn't become routine.

    UMMMMM but it is not starvation mode...

    I don't really care--it's a matter of semantics...a technicality. The message is not improper. So I don't get hung up on "starvation mode"...it's easier for MOST people to understand than going into the science of metabolic adaptation and hormonal issues associated with undereating.

    hey people used to think the world was flat and that was a matter of semantics too...or they thought the earth was at the center of hte universe..again semantics....

Categories