1200 Calories (NOT about hitting this #/starvation mode)

Sooooo, now I CONFUSED.....I have been eating the 1200 calories that MFP recommends and am SLOWLY losing weight. I just calculated my BMR, right here on MFP, and it comes up 1,602.....so should I be eating 1.602 calories plus my exercise calories? Will that make the weight come off faster because I'm really in starvation mode now and just don't know it????

Do you have less than 5% body fat? If you don't then you are not in true starvation mode!

You are losing weight on the calories you are eating, what is the point of upping them? No you are not in starvation mode at all. Just continue to do what you are doing, it is working a treat, why spoil it by changing it??

Please provide a source for this "statistic".

I think there is an awful lot of mis-education going around about what "starvation mode" or nutritional deprivation (which is what I'm going to start calling it) is. In my opinion it is just as irresponsible to tell people there is NO such thing as it is to tell them they'll go into it after a mere 6 hours of not eating. Unless someone is a licensed dietician, in which case, I defer to their greater knowledge.

To get more information on the Minnesota Starvation study - read http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/6/1347 (Journal of Nutrition) and another very informative post on this study and starvation in general - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science

Hi I'm new here but I wondered about the 1200 calorie per day total too. I have noticed that when I put in my exercise, I'm allowed more calories. So since I burn between 500-700 calories per day, it's added to the amount I can eat. That helps me a lot because I do go over the 1200 but I've never gone past 1700.

My job is pretty sedentary plus I eat every hour and half/two hours. But now it's a handful of almonds, yogurt or an apple instead of the candy, chips, etc.

I also write out my menu for the day in advance and that's what I take to work. It's when I get home is the toughest time to stick to it but so far I stick with my menu.

Wow I hope that wasn't to repetitious of what others have said. I guess I just wanted to put my two cents in :-D

Belina...By the way...I don't mean to be negative or anything, but it is ALWAYS possible to gain the weight back...trust me..ten yrs ago, I said the SAME thing, and I did a good job at keeping it off for awhile....but, life happenes and things change. Once you are overweight, that person is always inside you and can always creep her lil ugly head back up! I hope you are able to keep it off and congrats on your weight loss.

I think people need to worry less about starvation mode and think more about increasing their metabolism the natural way. Following this plan to the letter has allowed me to increase my metabolism. I am actually eating more calories now than I did when I was overweight. The difference is that I'm exercising and eating healthy calories most of the time.

I think there is an awful lot of mis-education going around about what "starvation mode" or nutritional deprivation (which is what I'm going to start calling it) is. In my opinion it is just as irresponsible to tell people there is NO such thing as it is to tell them they'll go into it after a mere 6 hours of not eating. Unless someone is a licensed dietician, in which case, I defer to their greater knowledge.

To get more information on the Minnesota Starvation study - read http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/6/1347 (Journal of Nutrition) and another very informative post on this study and starvation in general - http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science

I've just told you where I got my information from, it isn't fly-by-night sources you know :laugh:

To be honest, you find it irresponsible, well I find it just as nauseating for people to be continually told "eat more to lose weight" - I mean for crying out loud if that were the case none of us would be overweight in the slightest.

There are some terms that are continually used as excuses to eat more and feel okay about it and THEN moan when no weight comes off, then they ask why on the forums only to be told to "eat even more"

Some things some of us believe in, some things some of us don't, we all have our opinions, but I don't see why I should stay closed mouth about something I consider untrue anymore than I would consider you to stay quiet about something you are against.

I have steadily lost more by eating more, and it was not an excuse to just eat what I wanted. Sorry if you find it nauseating, but I have been very successful with my lifestyle. I actually put myself in a bad situation by eating only 1200 calories, my body meeds more, so really I think the whole "eat less, lose more" is outdated.

I have steadily lost more by eating more, and it was not an excuse to just eat what I wanted. Sorry if you find it nauseating, but I have been very successful with my lifestyle. I actually put myself in a bad situation by eating only 1200 calories, my body meeds more, so really I think the whole "eat less, lose more" is outdated.

"Eat less, lose more" isn't outdated but rather misapplied. I think everyone should read the Minnesota starvation study and I am glad someone finally brought it up. That is where the whole "Your metabolism will slow by 40% if you do X, Y, or Z" comes from. Some of the men after 24 weeks of eating 50-60% of their maintenance calories and losing 25% of the body weight below their initial ideal weight had the BMR drop by up to 40%. Not all of them did or by that much.

If you read the study you find that the first signs of "starvation mode" are insatiable hunger, constantly thinking about food, and some early signs of depression. Vastly reducing the metabolism is not the body's first response but rather one of its last tricks. So how can we use this information? Well a simple way is to tell if you are eating too few calories. If whatever calories you are eating has you constantly thinking about food, always starving, or binge eating, then you probably are too low regardless of the actual deficit. On the other hand if you don't have any of those issues and it really isn't that hard to only eat the calories you have set, you might be able to go lower (raise the deficit) without ill effect.

The guidelines of 0-1000 calories a day deficit are just that, guidelines based upon the general healthy population that once people start exceeding 1000 calories a day deficit they start showing the first signs of "starvation mode" in higher and higher percentages. At that point a person is far less likely to keep it up and based upon the behavior of the men in the study after being allowed to eat all they wanted, will overeat and gain weight. However, this is another part of the study that seems to be misapplied at times. The men in the study did not alter their "body weight thermostat" to a new lower weight but stabilized back at their original weight after about a year. Some ended up weighing more. So a conclusion that has been bandied about is that if you lose weight too fast you will not change your "body weight thermostat" and go back to your original weight or possibly higher. The problem with that conclusion is that the men in the study started at their ideal weight before losing 25% more weight so saying that someone whose is 30% over their ideal weight will wind up doing the same thing after simply attaining their ideal weight is a huge stretch. If a person cannot lower their body weight thermostat below their ideal weight simply by losing weight, maybe they can't raise it simply by gaining weight either?

I have not seen any direct studies on humans on this question of body weight thermostat but more reverse engineering a conclusion based upon people's self-reported habits after yo-yo dieting. What makes me skeptical but open minded right now is that today with processed foods, sugary snacks and drinks it is so insanely easy to eat a small volume of food that has 1000's of calories more than a person needs to maintain their weight and it tastes so good. Are yo-yo dieters overeating their calories because they totally screwed up their metabolism and their body is forcing them to by creating insatiable hunger until their body is overfat enough to be at their new body weight thermostat setting or is it they missed those wonderful flavors and feelings such unhealthy foods bring and simply stopped caring about counting calories (i.e. emotional/social eating)?

More about the Minnesota Study (with references!!)

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/womens-fitness-female-bodybuilding-training/minnesota-semi-starvation-study-603441.html

Not everyone has the same minimum necessary calories and under eating may affect different people differently (depending on their weight and the level of under eating, among other things). But the overall potential for making a person ill SHOULD be enough to make them think twice about eating at semi-starvation levels which is defined as 50% or less of what their body needs (maintenance). This is not an excuse for over eating, it simply means make healthy choices. Your body is a marvelous machine, give it the highest quality fuel and it will reward you with health.

I wear a Bodybugg, so I'm fortunate to know, within 10% accuracy, what my caloric expenditure is each day. Because of that, I don't use MFP the way most people do (I set my own calorie intake and do not log my exercise calories)...I determine my own deficit each day based on how many calories I've burned.

On average, I burn between 2700-3000 calories/day. If I ate 1200, I truly would pass out onto the ground. Okay, maybe not, but I certainly wouldn't be fueling my body for the work I ask it to do. I do, however, maintain a 500-900 calorie deficit, sometimes eating to my full calorie expenditure on days when my calorie burn is lower (zig zagging calories to keep my body 'guessing.')

I'm also 5'9", and right around 20% body fat. I still have weight to lose, but I am able to eat 2000 calories/day and still hit my 1+ lb/week loss. When I first joined MFP, it told me eat right around 1550 calories. Tried it...way too low...I kept crashing in my workouts.

How do you burn that many calories per day?

I wear a body bugg too and part of those calories include you calories burned just to live. So on a day that I don't do much but house clean and general life stuff I burn about 2200 calories, on days I work out I burn about 2700-3700 depending on if it was a hulk day or not.

overall, this post was good because too many people get stuck in the 1200 mode and when I first started MFP it gave me 1340 calories a day then I got my body bugg and when I increased my calories to an average of 1600 per day I lost more weight more consistently, maybe only a pound or two but I lost something every week. I will take the slow road over any other method.

I defiantly agree with what your saying. I have to admit I use to be one of those people that would only eat 1200 calories and it became impossible to ever be full which then i had to go workout even more to be able to eat one extra cup of cereal or whatever it was. With doing this I was starving my body and I stoped using MFP for one month and gained back 20 lbs in ONE MONTH!! so now I am stating over and I'm eating 1500cal and I am still losing and I know i can do this for the long run!!!

I think people need to worry less about starvation mode and think more about increasing their metabolism the natural way. Following this plan to the letter has allowed me to increase my metabolism. I am actually eating more calories now than I did when I was overweight. The difference is that I'm exercising and eating healthy calories most of the time.

I agree with the above statement. What MFP has done for me is to make me realize I need to properly nourish my body so that I will have enough energy to exercise and live my life.

But you haven't increased your metabolism, which is really difficult to do if at all possible. Increasing metabolism means increasing the number of calories burned when doing nothing, i.e. BMR. That doesn't happen. Instead you are simply "moving more" and burning more calories because you are more active. You shouldn't count the extra calories burned because you now park far away from work and using the stairs instead of the elevator as increasing BMR but in the lifestyle column and Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE) has gone up.

While this may seem like a really minor distinction since regardless of where the extra calories go, TDEE remains the same and so does the deficit, it is really an important distinction. The reason I say it is important is otherwise it helps perpetuate the myth that if you just do X, Y, or Z you will burn more calories while you sleep. Things like super-foods or "eat breakfast to kick start your metabolism" or "eat this but not that and your body will turn into a fat burning engine". These ideas make people think they don't have to move more to burn more calories.

Now before I get inundated with responses about HIIT and strength training burning calories up to 24-48 hours after exercise, it is more of a philosophical debate about whether metabolism has been increased temporarily or calories were simply under-reported during the activity. The problem is that calories burned during activity are normally measured by oxygen consumption but during high intensity exercise, much work is done anaerobically so it is not measured. Muscle energy reserves are depleted during exercise and are generally replaced over 1-2 days, called by some as increasing metabolism. So is it incorrect calorie counting or temporary metabolism increase? I go with under-counting because increasing metabolism implies much longer lasting than just 2 days.