Starvation Mode
Options
Replies
-
[/quote]
I've been here a long time. I don't need to be picked apart. For the last year, I've eaten organic, whole foods and very little is processed. I know full well how RMR and maintenance works and have studied how leptin, ghrelin, cortisol and insulin function to metabolize our nutrients. I test my blood sugar periodically and it's normal.
I am currently operating on the theory that I possibly have adrenal fatigue (due to the years of extreme dieting plus heavy stress) and am attempting to nourish them back to health. This includes not doing any heavy cardio (as all exercise is a form of stress), replacing it with yoga, getting more sleep, as well as increasing my vitamin B, D, C and pantothenic acid. I'm cutting out all stimulants (caffeine, energy vitamins and drinks) and continuing to eat healthy. Whatever happens, happens.
But I think it is irresponsible to tell people that they can't hurt themselves or put themselves into starvation mode by eating too little. They most certainly CAN... if done for long enough and severely enough. And no, it does not necessarily mean the person will be an anorexic or look like an concentration camp survivor.
Who said anything about picking you apart?? That is precisely what I was saying people should not do! You were asking why you were not losing weight even though you were eating between 1200-1400 calories per day and logging everything, that's fine, but nobody can answer you or suggest anything if that's all they know! You asked the question, nobody approached you to grill you :frown:
If you are satisfied with what you are doing, you are obviously doing it right, so there is no problem is there, or is there? I did say, nobody had the right to pick holes in anything you were doing, but to see if there was anything you have missed, there is not one person here or anywhere that knows everything and there will always be something we all miss and what one person misses another will see. You chose to read my posting as you wanted to, your choice.
By the way nowhere in my previous posting did I say ANYTHING about if somebody were in starvation mode that they would look like a concentration camp victim or an anorexic. What I said was that it was an insult to bandy the phrase "starvation mode" about so freely0 -
My husband and I were just talking about this is morning. He is worried I am going to go into this "mode", as I am eating around 900-1000 calories a day (1200 calorie max), and this is suppost to take off 2 lbs a week. To maintain my weight, I would be able to eat 1800 I believe, so I am cutting them a lot.
I try to exercise everyday at my gym, and I am there at least 4 times a week if not everyday. At the gym, I usually leave there and have burned 400-600 calories in an hour on cardio machines. I then log everything in exactly, my eating healthy, portions, I weigh and measure everything, its a new type of life I am loving.
He is worried I am not eating my calories I am burning at the gym, so at the end of the day with 1200 + my 400 at the gym, I now am supposed to eat 1600 calories, when I have only eaten 900-1000 somedays. He is worried this will put me in the mode of starvation, where I am not hungry at all, and if I am, I still snack, but it is healthier choices, like a yogurt or banana.. only using another 40-100 calories, instead of a couple cookies or something.
I have lost 9lbs so far, and have been doing this for a month. Should I be worried?0 -
I have a simple belief system about all this and I have seen a lot of winners on this site. I don't know of one that didn't fuel their body by eating at least 2/3 of their exercise calories, drinking enough water, and fluctuating their calories(some days a little over, some day a little under). Only the individual can decide what they believe is right. Like the blonde lady said above, none of us are professionals, although their may be one or two on this site, who knows. We all just share what works for us. You can read up on a lot of articles and one will tell you one thing and another, well, again, it's your call who to believe.
For me it's logic. If I am burning 1000 calories a day(when I can burn 1200 laying in bed)that means I've burned 2200. What is my body going to use to build and tone if I only eat 900 calories? It won't be just fat, I believe that. I believe that the first thing the body burns is food we've eaten, second, lean muscle mass, and last, fat.
When we eat exercise calories that doesn't mean we are eating junk, not if we are smart. We are replenishing with our "new lifestyle" meals, balanced nutrition that builds muscles and makes our organs function properly. Not empty calories that just get stored as fat.
Just my opinion, DeniseMy husband and I were just talking about this is morning. He is worried I am going to go into this "mode", as I am eating around 900-1000 calories a day (1200 calorie max), and this is suppost to take off 2 lbs a week. To maintain my weight, I would be able to eat 1800 I believe, so I am cutting them a lot.
I try to exercise everyday at my gym, and I am there at least 4 times a week if not everyday. At the gym, I usually leave there and have burned 400-600 calories in an hour on cardio machines. I then log everything in exactly, my eating healthy, portions, I weigh and measure everything, its a new type of life I am loving.
He is worried I am not eating my calories I am burning at the gym, so at the end of the day with 1200 + my 400 at the gym, I now am supposed to eat 1600 calories, when I have only eaten 900-1000 somedays. He is worried this will put me in the mode of starvation, where I am not hungry at all, and if I am, I still snack, but it is healthier choices, like a yogurt or banana.. only using another 40-100 calories, instead of a couple cookies or something.
I have lost 9lbs so far, and have been doing this for a month. Should I be worried?0 -
As someone who has run the gambit on fitness levels throughout the last couple years, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the time that someone thinks they are "going into starvation mode," they are wrong. Plain and simple. Your body will not start slowing its metabolic rates until food intake has become a true problem. I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of times it's the easiest way to rationalize around the fact that losing weight is not a constant, easy process. Things will lull at times, changing up your workouts and making sure you're eating WELL is more important than "oh, i should start eating more." People have to be willing to be honest with themselves constantly, instead of looking for a path with less resistance.
Using high performance athletes is NOT a good example for the average user of this site. Do those of you who mention things like that know WHY guys like Michael Phelps take in 12,000 calories a day? It's because he's swimming olympic heats for hours a day. This does not compare to an hour or two that we may spend at the gym, and it's not a great comparison.
Simple fact is, being hungry =/= starving.0 -
There are plenty of people on this site who don't eat at least 2/3 of their exercise calories who are losing weight and doing great.I don't know of one that didn't fuel their body by eating at least 2/3 of their exercise calories,
You can believe that but it flies in the face of all scientific evidence.I believe that the first thing the body burns is food we've eaten, second, lean muscle mass, and last, fat.
Our bodies are designed to burn what we don't need over what we do ... which means you burn fat over muscle.
It makes no sense for our bodies to burn fat last. We need our muscles to move around. The fat (over our essential fat that cushions our organs) is there to tied us over when food is scarce. That's it's purpose in life and, when we make food "scarce" but voluntarily not eating as much as we burn, it gets burned up.
If humanity burned muscles over fat preferentially, the human race would never have survived because historically food has been scarce over much of our existence.0 -
As someone who has run the gambit on fitness levels throughout the last couple years, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the time that someone thinks they are "going into starvation mode," they are wrong. Plain and simple. Your body will not start slowing its metabolic rates until food intake has become a true problem. I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of times it's the easiest way to rationalize around the fact that losing weight is not a constant, easy process. Things will lull at times, changing up your workouts and making sure you're eating WELL is more important than "oh, i should start eating more." People have to be willing to be honest with themselves constantly, instead of looking for a path with less resistance.
Using high performance athletes is NOT a good example for the average user of this site. Do those of you who mention things like that know WHY guys like Michael Phelps take in 12,000 calories a day? It's because he's swimming olympic heats for hours a day. This does not compare to an hour or two that we may spend at the gym, and it's not a great comparison.
Simple fact is, being hungry =/= starving.
ITA with this poster. If you are overweight, eating 1200 calories a day and exercising on top of it for 2 weeks and haven't lost any weight, you are not in 'starvation mode'. Everyone loves to throw that word around and it drives me batty. 99% of the time you are eating too many calories and not at a high enough deficit. I think we underestimate how many calories we eat and overestimate how many calories we burn.
Bottom line is it is calories in vs calories out!0 -
Just posting so I can come back to this thread. It is interesting, but I cannot keep my eyes open!0
-
As someone who has run the gambit on fitness levels throughout the last couple years, I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the time that someone thinks they are "going into starvation mode," they are wrong. Plain and simple. Your body will not start slowing its metabolic rates until food intake has become a true problem. I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of times it's the easiest way to rationalize around the fact that losing weight is not a constant, easy process. Things will lull at times, changing up your workouts and making sure you're eating WELL is more important than "oh, i should start eating more." People have to be willing to be honest with themselves constantly, instead of looking for a path with less resistance.
Using high performance athletes is NOT a good example for the average user of this site. Do those of you who mention things like that know WHY guys like Michael Phelps take in 12,000 calories a day? It's because he's swimming olympic heats for hours a day. This does not compare to an hour or two that we may spend at the gym, and it's not a great comparison.
Simple fact is, being hungry =/= starving.
ITA with this poster. If you are overweight, eating 1200 calories a day and exercising on top of it for 2 weeks and haven't lost any weight, you are not in 'starvation mode'. Everyone loves to throw that word around and it drives me batty. 99% of the time you are eating too many calories and not at a high enough deficit. I think we underestimate how many calories we eat and overestimate how many calories we burn.
Bottom line is it is calories in vs calories out!
Amen! Excellent post!!
It's been that way for me since my first weight loss programme and it will be that way until my last. Hopefully this time will be my last :laugh:
If my weight loss suddenly slows down I will stick in another exercise day and so on and so forth. :flowerforyou:0 -
Hi after reading this is it okay not to eat my exercise points, i am allocated 1200 cals a day but after doing exercise and updating my log it says i will go into starvation mode and my weight wont shift
Thnaks0 -
I lost almost 11 stone starving myself (600 cals a day roughly) over six months.
While I lost at an incredible amount weight what I wasn't doing was getting my body ready for 'normal' so to speak, when I did stop the 600 cals a day I ended up bouncing back up with a vengeance.
Also I was putting my health at risk, I was told I was close to giving myself diabetes as my blood sugar was going crazy, was close to damaging my liver and my kidneys, I was training like crazy as well so I wasn't giving my body anything to repair the damage my workouts were doing.
Starvation mode? I don't want to say either way if it exists or not, all I know is that it's better to be sensible and 'lifestyle change' rather than go on an insane crash diet, they do work in the short term, but then you are not ready for when you're not crash dieting.0 -
Well I get equally angry because people call "starvation mode' a MYTH, when, after 4 years of starvation level dieting (less than 800 calories per day) and 1 year of struggling to reset my metabolism and eat normally, I STILL cannot lose any weight eating at what SHOULD be a healthy deficit. If it's not a myth, then WHY can't I lose weight????? I'm over it and I'm over people who think it's a simple matter of eating less. I weigh, measure, log every damn bite I put in my mouth and after a year and a half of doing so, I'm very positive of what I take in. I eat 1200-1400 calories per day. I've done all sorts of exercises and am currently doing only yoga as I'm trying to de-stress my adrenal glands. And not one single pound or inch in nearly a friggin year. Yeah, no such thing as starvation mode.....riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Have you had thorough testing done to see if you are:
1. Leptin Resistant
2. Hypo-Thyroid
3. Suffering from Adrenal Gland Fatigue?
If you have sufficient fat stores, there is no way for the body to go into "starvation mode" as the others have suggested. It sounds as if you have some other issue going on with your Endocrine system.0 -
Hi after reading this is it okay not to eat my exercise points, i am allocated 1200 cals a day but after doing exercise and updating my log it says i will go into starvation mode and my weight wont shift
Thnaks
It says that to me everyday too, I still have just under 700 left to eat today, but I will not eat them because I have just had dinner and am full.
Speaking only for myself, I rarely go over 1200 calories per day whether I exercise on that day or not and I can honestly say, I have never, ever felt better. The weight is coming off and my waistbands are now loose, the inches are decreasing, sometimes I lose 1lb per week, last week it was 4lb.
Definite common sense is needed in eating plans and that does not include trying to put more food into my belly once I am full
0 -
You're right, I can believe what I like but I don't push it on anyone else. Other's have their ways and I will express an opinion especially when it works for me and others I know. If someone is trying it your way(lets say)and it is not working, let's give them choices.
And "all" scientific evidence doesn't mean too much because first, not "all" scientific evidence would agree with you, depends on the scientist. And also, look at how "scientific" evidence has been disproved over the years. I just say do what you want and feel comfortable with. Another thing is to see what true athletes eat, like the swimmer who ate 30,000 calories to maintain his weight(enough weight)to compete and win the Olympics.
Later, gotta hit the road for work. Thanks for your input:drinker: :drinker: :drinker:
There are plenty of people on this site who don't eat at least 2/3 of their exercise calories who are losing weight and doing great.I don't know of one that didn't fuel their body by eating at least 2/3 of their exercise calories,
You can believe that but it flies in the face of all scientific evidence.I believe that the first thing the body burns is food we've eaten, second, lean muscle mass, and last, fat.
Our bodies are designed to burn what we don't need over what we do ... which means you burn fat over muscle.
It makes no sense for our bodies to burn fat last. We need our muscles to move around. The fat (over our essential fat that cushions our organs) is there to tied us over when food is scarce. That's it's purpose in life and, when we make food "scarce" but voluntarily not eating as much as we burn, it gets burned up.
If humanity burned muscles over fat preferentially, the human race would never have survived because historically food has been scarce over much of our existence.0 -
Ditto, couldn't agree more;) DeniseI lost almost 11 stone starving myself (600 cals a day roughly) over six months.
While I lost at an incredible amount weight what I wasn't doing was getting my body ready for 'normal' so to speak, when I did stop the 600 cals a day I ended up bouncing back up with a vengeance.
Also I was putting my health at risk, I was told I was close to giving myself diabetes as my blood sugar was going crazy, was close to damaging my liver and my kidneys, I was training like crazy as well so I wasn't giving my body anything to repair the damage my workouts were doing.
Starvation mode? I don't want to say either way if it exists or not, all I know is that it's better to be sensible and 'lifestyle change' rather than go on an insane crash diet, they do work in the short term, but then you are not ready for when you're not crash dieting.0 -
. Another thing is to see what true athletes eat, like the swimmer who ate 30,000 calories to maintain his weight(enough weight)to compete and win the Olympics.
Michael Phelps was swimming 6 to 7 hours a day at a super high intensity preparing his body for Olympic heats. It wasn't to maintain his weight, it's because he was burning twelve thousand calories a day. When you're already in shape, you HAVE to preload for extending exercise, because your body doesn't have energy store(fat) to tap into.0 -
I'm loving this topic because I am sick of hearing about starvation mode. It's all about energy in/energy out and taking in less than your body uses. Cutting back on food means you will lose weight, nothing complicated about it.
Sure many of you have stories about stuffing up your metabolisms, but unfortunately for you, you are not in the majority. Our bodies are beautiful, efficient things, I have come to realise.
The secret to weight loss is eating less. The myth of starvation mode is the real secret the multi-billion dollar weight loss industry is shoving down our throats, leading astray all those who want to shed the socially created and modern problem of excess weight.
Put down that burger, pizza, chocolate and cake and realise, for goodness sake, that being overweight and obese is a modern problem based on food.0 -
Can i just suggest that it is not starvation mode people should be worrying about. Your body needs nutrition for physical and psychological well being and function. So whether or not you believe in "starvatio" mode, it is essential that your body is fed at least 1200 calories for psycholigical and physiological functioning.
It is dangerous to your body and mind to restrict...it is NOT all about starvation mode 0 -
Can i just suggest that it is not starvation mode people should be worrying about. Your body needs nutrition for physical and psychological well being and function. So whether or not you believe in "starvatio" mode, it is essential that your body is fed at least 1200 calories for psycholigical and physiological functioning.
It is dangerous to your body and mind to restrict...it is NOT all about starvation mode
Therefore, people posting that they can eat only 700 calories are certainly putting areas of their health into jeapody! Yes, I'm sure you're losing weight, but it is difficult for the body to use up fat stores for psychological and body functioing! I know there will always be people who are at extremes of this programme but what I don't agree upon is them throwing their beliefs and opinions around as if it is completely normal and acceptable to be only giving the body 700 calories a day! No healthy person lives on 700 cals a day and this is certainly not the case if you are putting your body through an intensive exercise regime.
Now, that is MY opinion only :flowerforyou:0 -
I am on the fence about starvation mode. There has to be something that is happening when someone is spending weeks exercising at high intensity, only eating 1200 calories a day or less, and still not losing. Yet, when calories are added, they do lose weight. Sometimes it really seems that weight loss is more than just simple math. Starvation mode is probably not the term for it, but it's something.
Of course, over time it makes sense that on can kill his or her metabolism by eating low amounts for years as another poster did, and the only real cure for that is going back to eating normal amounts and doing weight training until your body trusts you again. It's the in between stuff I'm unclear on.0 -
I am on the fence about starvation mode. There has to be something that is happening when someone is spending weeks exercising at high intensity, only eating 1200 calories a day or less, and still not losing. Yet, when calories are added, they do lose weight. Sometimes it really seems that weight loss is more than just simple math. Starvation mode is probably not the term for it, but it's something.
Of course, over time it makes sense that on can kill his or her metabolism by eating low amounts for years as another poster did, and the only real cure for that is going back to eating normal amounts and doing weight training until your body trusts you again. It's the in between stuff I'm unclear on.
Yes, it is called Metabolic Resistance.
If after 6-8 weeks of eating and exercising with a calorie deficit and you have not lost pounds or inches, that person should be evaluated by their physician for thyroid, PCOS, Pituitary, Adrenal issues (just to name a few Endocrine issues).............0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions