what is up with starvation mode...

skipping meals is one thing but starvation mode is another. I was full and satisfied last night and ended up with not using like 400 calrories and they told me when I closed my diary for the day that I was putting myself in starvation mode. It was not intentional. From now on I am going to eat what I am supposed to so I am satisfied until morning. hate waking up ravenous

ummm that's a joke right?

You have to eat nothing for three days to be in starvation mode...

being four hundred cals below your goal is not starvation mode...

this is what I am talking about people!

Not what this person was saying, but let's add some assumptions to further the discussion...

Are you saying that if someone consistently eats 800 calories that it won't affect their metabolism/energy levels/etc.?

I can get on board occasional under-eating not being a problem...human beings are remarkably resilient...but regardless of what name you give it, I am convinced that chronically eating very low calories has a detrimental effect.

agree.. but it will eff up your metabolism and will be harder to burn fat and get big muscles if you wanna do that.

I would love for all these "starvation mode" pushers to go tell that to the kids in Africa. Seriously.

Exactly the problem with this phrase. Starvation mode =/= starvation.

Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern.

But yea, lets just forget that phrase.

^this...

...although I was under my goal today by about 200 calories, so I'm definitely in starvation mode right now...(at least until midnight when my body resets).

Wha??? The body resets at midnight?? I thought it was 7!!

Midnight you say? What time zone?

Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern....

Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?

Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern....

Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?

I HAVE HAD MANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF EATING 1200 CALORIES A DAY...

1. i have no clothes that fit me
2. my teenage daughers pervert friends flirt with me
3. i get cold easier now
4. i have these collar bones emerging from my chest
5. i have this point where my butt cheeks stop and my thighs begin (instead of one continuous blob of fat)
6. i had to buy new bras
7. my husband wont keep his eyes or hands off of me, i feel like i live with a stalker
8. my daughter is upset that im fitting into her clothes and wearing them

and im sure much more, just cant think of it all right now... im having a garage sale selling all of my parachuts clothes since 1200 cals a day made it to where i no longer can wear my awesome wardrobe...

over the last 8 months... 1200 calories a day has done horrible things to me... just horrible!!!

Love it!

Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern....

Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?

IMHO, for those for whom 1200 represents too great of a deficit, it can lead to a decrease in metabolism (BMR/NEAT), decrease in LBM, decrease in energy, etc. Many have posted their experiences with that approach and their stories are sobering...mental fog, physical issues (such as hair falling out, sunken eyes, skin issues, etc.) For those who ignore nutritional requirements...(or for lack of a better phrase, "do it wrong")...it can lead to nutritional deficiencies. (And yes, I acknowledge that people eating more can also have nutritional deficiencies...but I stand by my claim that eating fewer calories makes that more likely.) And then there's the issue with long-term results/adherence to a more restrictive diet...although I believe some recent research may be challenging that position.

Now for those people for whom 1200 is an appropriate amount, and assuming they "do it right", then there are no problems. I believe these people are a relatively small percentage though...(but what they lack in numbers, they seem to make up for in forum zeal).

Just so we're clear, I have no problems with people who succeed on 1200 calories. My approach to the topic, however, is that people should start by finding the *most* calories then can eat while still making progress towards their goals instead of the *least* calories. I believe it is likely healthier, more likely to succeed, more likely to like their end result, more energy, etc...

...but I'm a little off-topic for this thread, so I'll stop here.

Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern....

Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?

IMHO, for those for whom 1200 represents too great of a deficit, it can lead to a decrease in metabolism (BMR/NEAT), decrease in LBM, decrease in energy, etc. Many have posted their experiences with that approach and their stories are sobering...mental fog, physical issues (such as hair falling out, sunken eyes, skin issues, etc.) For those who ignore nutritional requirements...(or for lack of a better phrase, "do it wrong")...it can lead to nutritional deficiencies. (And yes, I acknowledge that people eating more can also have nutritional deficiencies...but I stand by my claim that eating fewer calories makes that more likely.) And then there's the issue with long-term results/adherence to a more restrictive diet...although I believe some recent research may be challenging that position.

Now for those people for whom 1200 is an appropriate amount, and assuming they "do it right", then there are no problems. I believe these people are a relatively small percentage though...(but what they lack in numbers, they seem to make up for in forum zeal).

Just so we're clear, I have no problems with people who succeed on 1200 calories. My approach to the topic, however, is that people should start by finding the *most* calories then can eat while still making progress towards their goals instead of the *least* calories. I believe it is likely healthier, more likely to succeed, more likely to like their end result, more energy, etc...

...but I'm a little off-topic for this thread, so I'll stop here.

but who says that those eating 1200 are ignoring nutritional reccomendations. its reccomended that females consume no LESS than 1200, and males 1500. in fact, those who are super heavy, and under the care and supervision of a medical professional can go as low as 800 cals a day with minimum risk to long term health. at 1200 cals a day, a person can easily take in all the the nutrients needed for an adult female. at 1200 a day, i get near 100g or protien, above 80% of needed viatamins such as a,b,c and iron, and keep my fat and carbs at average intakes. my hair is thick, skin is good, energy and brain activity is awesome... per my md, 1200 cals is no concern for negative effects on my body. i lose an average of 2 pounds a week, have increased my strength a great deal, for example, on the vertical press, in sept 30 pounds was my limit, now im at 115... i dont understand why you would say that eating 1200 is ignoring nutritional reccomendations... whos reccomendations would that be?

Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern....

Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?

IMHO, for those for whom 1200 represents too great of a deficit, it can lead to a decrease in metabolism (BMR/NEAT), decrease in LBM, decrease in energy, etc. Many have posted their experiences with that approach and their stories are sobering...mental fog, physical issues (such as hair falling out, sunken eyes, skin issues, etc.) For those who ignore nutritional requirements...(or for lack of a better phrase, "do it wrong")...it can lead to nutritional deficiencies. (And yes, I acknowledge that people eating more can also have nutritional deficiencies...but I stand by my claim that eating fewer calories makes that more likely.) And then there's the issue with long-term results/adherence to a more restrictive diet...although I believe some recent research may be challenging that position.

Now for those people for whom 1200 is an appropriate amount, and assuming they "do it right", then there are no problems. I believe these people are a relatively small percentage though...(but what they lack in numbers, they seem to make up for in forum zeal).

Just so we're clear, I have no problems with people who succeed on 1200 calories. My approach to the topic, however, is that people should start by finding the *most* calories then can eat while still making progress towards their goals instead of the *least* calories. I believe it is likely healthier, more likely to succeed, more likely to like their end result, more energy, etc...

...but I'm a little off-topic for this thread, so I'll stop here.

but who says that those eating 1200 are ignoring nutritional reccomendations. its reccomended that females consume no LESS than 1200, and males 1500. in fact, those who are super heavy, and under the care and supervision of a medical professional can go as low as 800 cals a day with minimum risk to long term health. at 1200 cals a day, a person can easily take in all the the nutrients needed for an adult female. at 1200 a day, i get near 100g or protien, above 80% of needed viatamins such as a,b,c and iron, and keep my fat and carbs at average intakes. my hair is thick, skin is good, energy and brain activity is awesome... per my md, 1200 cals is no concern for negative effects on my body. i lose an average of 2 pounds a week, have increased my strength a great deal, for example, on the vertical press, in sept 30 pounds was my limit, now im at 115... i dont understand why you would say that eating 1200 is ignoring nutritional reccomendations... whos reccomendations would that be?

Congrats. It sounds like you're one of the people for whom 1200 is appropriate (or at the very least not detrimental). I acknowledge that this is the case for some people. And I hope it continues to work for you.

That said, your results have not swayed my general beliefs on the appropriateness of it for those who are trying to make it work for them...and it certainly doesn't undo the stories of those (some of which are my friends here) who have suffered real consequences of trying to make it work for them.

I'm curious if you jumped straight into 1200 calories or if you started higher and worked your way down to it. My recommendation would be the latter, which helps to reduce the number of people who are trying to adhere to it when they likely shouldn't.

i started at a little over 1400, and saw very little loss, less than a pound a week, then dropped to 1300 ish, where i started losing a pound a week, and then again to 1200 where i steadily have lost 2 pounds a week since september. i think that when the correct choices are made, 1200 can be very sustainable for weight loss. 1200 cals of foods that are nutritious, filling, full of protien, etc. vs 1/2 large bag of flaming hot cheetos and a 4 beers (1200 cals) are two entirely different scenerios... i eat all day long, i have meals, snacks, even a klondike ice cream each night before bed... im getting more from the 1200 cals that i eat now, than the 4000 cals a day that i used to eat that was full of pure crap. i see people telling people on here, to eat more, eat more... but really, is it any better if the person being told to eat more stuffs a snickers candy bar down their throat just to get in an extra 300 calories? is that any more beneficial than the 1150 calories, or the 1200 calories, or even the 1300 calories? i dont think so.

Meh, forgetting about the term "starvation mode" which is over used and misunderstood here, eating too few calories over a long period of time has a negative effect whether it is truly starvation mode or not.

Just because someone is not in starvation mode doesn't mean there is no concern....

Sincere question ~ what IS the negative effect & concern re:, as example, 1200 calories a day?

1200 is not a magic number, there are some that it is fine for, therefore no negative effect. There are many more who it isn't. This thread wasn't about 1200, its about the misunderstanding of what starvation mode really is.
You can be at 1700 calories and still possibly eating too few calories.

Jof pretty much covered everything. I did the whole low calories, super high exercise thing. I lost weight, I looked fantastic, didn't feel too bad. It was the maintaining that killed me because I had damaged my metabolism.

Here is a good account from one lady who thought she was eating enough
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/919536-get-your-metabolic-rate-tested-my-metabolic-reset-story

Thank you, I appreciate your input