what is up with starvation mode...
Replies
-
...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.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.0 -
I think people are just using the phrase wrong.
When most people say "you are going into starvation mode!!!!" They mean that the person is probably seeing a stall in weightloss from eating too little.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (I've experienced this too) that there is a threshold of calories (unique to every person) that if you go below, you will stall out. People are misinterpreting this as 'starvation mode' because they don't really know all the facts.
I am interested to know exactly what anybody's body uses for energy when there is a deficit in the daily calories.
There is no scientific evidence regarding eating too little stops weightloss, to do so violates the laws of physics.0 -
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I'm talking about!!! 1200 calories of good, healthy food WILL keep your full and fuel your body effectively. Your body is 'starving' more if you fill it with 1500 calories of crap, than if you fill it will 1200 (or even less *GASP*) of healthy foods.0 -
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?
If anybody wishes to go on a 1200 calories per day eating diet/plan etc call it what you want, there is only one rule you need to remember:
Ensure you eat enough vitamins, minerals, protein, carbs and fats and that all the food is nutritious and not empty rubbish.
Do this and it is fine, but use up those 1200 daily calories on confectionary, sweets and cakes and after a while you will notice detrimental effects - THIS is the part that becomes detrimental, other than that, 1200 calories per day is okay.0 -
You really need to take age into consideration also. It is recommended that I eat 1200 a day, however I can not lose at that. I'm currently eating around 1000-1100 per day and am doing ok (I'm just in my third week). I messed my metabolism up with the Adkins diet, and I'm now 61..... It makes a big difference when trying to lose weight. I feel good and have great energy at just 8lbs lost, so I'm pretty happy with what I'm eating.0
-
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?
If anybody wishes to go on a 1200 calories per day eating diet/plan etc call it what you want, there is only one rule you need to remember:
Ensure you eat enough vitamins, minerals, protein, carbs and fats and that all the food is nutritious and not empty rubbish.
Do this and it is fine, but use up those 1200 daily calories on confectionary, sweets and cakes and after a while you will notice detrimental effects - THIS is the part that becomes detrimental, other than that, 1200 calories per day is okay.[/b[
"1200 calories per day is okay"...for whom? For everyone and anyone?
My position is that 1200 calories per day is okay for some but absolutely not okay for others. And yet you are advocating that it is okay for anyone? I strongly disagree.0 -
I think people are just using the phrase wrong.
When most people say "you are going into starvation mode!!!!" They mean that the person is probably seeing a stall in weightloss from eating too little.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (I've experienced this too) that there is a threshold of calories (unique to every person) that if you go below, you will stall out. People are misinterpreting this as 'starvation mode' because they don't really know all the facts.
I am interested to know exactly what anybody's body uses for energy when there is a deficit in the daily calories.
There is no scientific evidence regarding eating too little stops weightloss, to do so violates the laws of physics.
I'm not saying it stops weight loss. I'm saying that, over time, it will lead to a decrease in metabolism (MBR/NEAT) which will make healthy weight loss more difficult to manage because it will reduce the number of calories the individual can eat and still lose weight which can make getting sufficient nutrient more difficult.0 -
...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.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.
im assuming this is not directed at me, since i am no where near my first month into it?0 -
its not fake its real
because you are only eating 1200 calories a day you are in starvation mode"...
thats why u gain weight u need to eat more caleries..............0 -
...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.
This ^^ rings true for me too. My diary is open and I trust anyone would see that with my approx. 1200 calories/day, I am heartily well-fed.
The real test of your theory that 1200 is appropriate for you will be 6-9+ months from now, not in your first month of it. For your sake, I hope you're right and that your nutrition is solid, body comp is what you want, your metabolism is still burning hot, and your transition to maintenance is effortless. The problem is, based on the accounts of many many people, that isn't always the case...and many of them don't realize it until that point down the road when they finally see it in retrospect. It is for that reason that I stick to the recommendation that people start high and find the point where they are consuming the most calories and still making appropriate progress.
Nonetheless, best of luck to you.
im assuming this is not directed at me, since i am no where near my first month into it?
Correct...but no assumption was really necessary. My post was in response to the last post quoted, which was rosemary. Generally, that's how the MFP forums work. Unless otherwise specified, responses will be to the last post quoted.0 -
I think people are just using the phrase wrong.
When most people say "you are going into starvation mode!!!!" They mean that the person is probably seeing a stall in weightloss from eating too little.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (I've experienced this too) that there is a threshold of calories (unique to every person) that if you go below, you will stall out. People are misinterpreting this as 'starvation mode' because they don't really know all the facts.
I am interested to know exactly what anybody's body uses for energy when there is a deficit in the daily calories.
There is no scientific evidence regarding eating too little stops weightloss, to do so violates the laws of physics.
I'm not saying it stops weight loss. I'm saying that, over time, it will lead to a decrease in metabolism (MBR/NEAT) which will make healthy weight loss more difficult to manage because it will reduce the number of calories the individual can eat and still lose weight which can make getting sufficient nutrient more difficult.
As the weeks and months go by, weightloss slows down, it is the way it works. However, many people think they can lose at exactly the same rate they did at the beginning and when they don't, they automatically think they are in starvation mode.
That is not starvation mode.0 -
I luv it when someone says to eat certain foods cause they help you burn Fat as they provide “Negative” calories. Negative??? Really???
lol I remember that, celery and cucumber or something wasn't it.
When I first heard about negative calories I immediately Googled all over the internet to find out if it were true - alas it wasn't :laugh:0 -
I just went to see a dietician who said I am putting my body in "starvation mode" when I go from night shift to day shift and only eat 800 calories sometimes because I am only up for 8 hours. Also, she said eating at irregular times puts the body in starvation mode. I didn't know what to say.think.0
-
Only those with anorexia in the west are starving, the rest of the west are well fed, though can be undernourished
on a western diet of over processed, and /or mass produced/ intensively farmed products0 -
I have never not been0
-
I just went to see a dietician who said I am putting my body in "starvation mode" when I go from night shift to day shift and only eat 800 calories sometimes because I am only up for 8 hours. Also, she said eating at irregular times puts the body in starvation mode. I didn't know what to say.think.
I work shifts too, I find it nigh on impossible to stick to regular eating times, sometimes I have to get up at 3am other times I go to bed at 5am, I also eat at irregular times, I still say I have never been in any starvation mode lol.
What credentials does that Dietician have, do you know?0 -
YOU MUST STOKE THE METABOLIC FIRE EAT EVERY 2 HOURS
i'd like to meet the genius who came up with that one...he has probably made millions on books...
Had a Pt tell me that you wake up in starvation mode EVERY DAY, so it doesnt matter if it's only a single bite of food, but you MUST eat something within a half hour of waking up to get out of starvation mode.
Oh the terrible metaphors. What's harder, getting a fire started or keeping it going? Can your car's engine run if there's no gas in the tank?
1. You were CLEARLY not a pyromaniac as a kid. There is NOTHING easier than starting a fire.
2. Ok, if we're gonna go with bad car matephors .. my engine runs the same regardless of if I have a full tank or 1/8th of a tank ...
As far as car metaphors, I always wonder if the car in question is a Suburban or a Prius.0 -
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.
Long term affect would be that their metabolism would in fact slow down..however, I do not agree that metabolic slow down is starvation mode..
Starvation mode is when your body actually starts turning on itself for energy...fat stores are exhausted and the body starts using muscle for energy...then you are in true starvation mode...
or am I just playing "semantics"
Then I think we have just reconciled what earlier seemed to be two opposing views.
I agree with this. The problem is, many people use the phrase "starvation mode" when they mean "metabolic slow-down". I have no problem with the position that the phrase is incorrect, as long as we're on the same page that "metabolic slow-down" is still something worth warning/advising people of.
I agree that long term under eating is a bad thing ...
I guess two things that frustrate me..
1. when people say they are netting 1200 calories and someone says you are in "starvation mode" or even netting 800 calories..I am like no you have to eat nothing to do that ..or do a 72 hour fast ..then yes, you are jacking with your metabolism and really are in starvation mode..
2. the minute someone posts a "help, not losing " thread the TDEE 20 percenters (I came up with that name..pretty catch hugh? LOL) immediately start yapping about you must start eating more now...I do TDEE method myself but that does not mean that it is for everyone...ughhh just frustrating that first thing they say is "eat more" as if that will work for everyone....0 -
I just went to see a dietician who said I am putting my body in "starvation mode" when I go from night shift to day shift and only eat 800 calories sometimes because I am only up for 8 hours. Also, she said eating at irregular times puts the body in starvation mode. I didn't know what to say.think.
get a new dietician...0 -
2. the minute someone posts a "help, not losing " thread the TDEE 20 percenters (I came up with that name..pretty catch hugh? LOL) immediately start yapping about you must start eating more now...I do TDEE method myself but that does not mean that it is for everyone...ughhh just frustrating that first thing they say is "eat more" as if that will work for everyone....
It always confused me why people automatically suggest not using the MFP method when this is the site we are using. Most of the time the problem is the user, not MFP. If people choose correct goals and log exercise realistically, it works out to be the same.
Both methods have their advantages. I have recommended TDEE at times.
As for the "eat more". I am firmly entrenched on the "eat as much as you can and still lose weight" club. However the resounding "you need to eat more" on those questions frustrate me as well. I have seen it many times where people are not logging - how can you say they need to eat more when they don't really know how much. I've seen people who are constantly eating over their calorie goal but don't say that in their post. The other issue is I see crazy high calorie burn logs, eating back those calories and are still being told to eat more.
Sometimes the answer is eat more, particularly for long term success and I have seen people who break plateaus by upping calories temporarily. But it's not always the right answer.0 -
Nothing to add.....just love this thread! Thanks for the laugh! :laugh:0
-
I swear if I see one more person say that "because you are only eating 1200 calories a day you are in starvation mode"...
no no no no no and no ..you can't eat 1200 calories a day and be in starvation mode. You have to eat nothing for 72 hours and even then the effects are minimal...
sighs, I swear my mission on MFP is to correct this BS ...oh and I used to believe in this crap myself too ....
whats the lamest starvation mode claim you have seen?
Broscience0 -
I have been wondering .....???? Now if a person has a lot of extra fat..like me ..then if I eat lets say mmm..1100 cals a day and my body is burning the remainder fat for my fuel..then whats the difference between eating food for fuel and burning fat for fuel? Either way its fuel for the body to run right? Now if you say that i cant get enough nutrition in vlc diet..I beg to differ..as I take natural vitamin powders everyday.
I tried eating 1200 cals at first when I joined in March ..well I was exhausted..so i upped it and read many posts which said eat more and i didnt lose weight after upping cals..So i lowered my cals now and i am not tired and am losing? I prefer eating less now..
who knows whats going on?0 -
Yes, body fat contributes to the inside of the energy balance equation. It can represent about 30cals per lb of body fat. Basically someone that is obese, lets say they weigh 200 lbs with 35% body fat or about 70lbs that can represent 2100 calories for energy requirements which ultimately will depend on the deficit. Same weight, 200 lbs with 10% body fat can only generate 600 calories and the reason why the depth of the deficit and how much body fat a person has effects a metabolic adaption/slowdown when the body dips into lean mass reserves for any extra energy.......I have been wondering .....???? Now if a person has a lot of extra fat..like me ..then if I eat lets say mmm..1100 cals a day and my body is burning the remainder fat for my fuel..then whats the difference between eating food for fuel and burning fat for fuel? Either way its fuel for the body to run right? Now if you say that i cant get enough nutrition in vlc diet..I beg to differ..as I take natural vitamin powders everyday.
I tried eating 1200 cals at first when I joined in March ..well I was exhausted..so i upped it and read many posts which said eat more and i didnt lose weight after upping cals..So i lowered my cals now and i am not tired and am losing? I prefer eating less now..
who knows whats going on?0 -
2. the minute someone posts a "help, not losing " thread the TDEE 20 percenters (I came up with that name..pretty catch hugh? LOL) immediately start yapping about you must start eating more now...I do TDEE method myself but that does not mean that it is for everyone...ughhh just frustrating that first thing they say is "eat more" as if that will work for everyone....
It always confused me why people automatically suggest not using the MFP method when this is the site we are using. Most of the time the problem is the user, not MFP. If people choose correct goals and log exercise realistically, it works out to be the same.
Both methods have their advantages. I have recommended TDEE at times.
As for the "eat more". I am firmly entrenched on the "eat as much as you can and still lose weight" club. However the resounding "you need to eat more" on those questions frustrate me as well. I have seen it many times where people are not logging - how can you say they need to eat more when they don't really know how much. I've seen people who are constantly eating over their calorie goal but don't say that in their post. The other issue is I see crazy high calorie burn logs, eating back those calories and are still being told to eat more.
Sometimes the answer is eat more, particularly for long term success and I have seen people who break plateaus by upping calories temporarily. But it's not always the right answer.
I am with you three dogs..
I have somone on my friends list that always is posting like 3000 calorie burns ..and I am like there is no way that can be accurate but she says she uses an HRM....I mean I have a body fit media and my deadlift, leg curl, front squat, clean and press, ab (1.5 total work out) burns about 500 and that is pretty intense....IDK...0 -
Thank you so much for this thread. I am very obese but have been working to lose it on my own instead of doing the whole bypass surgery thing. I am at a plateau right now and when I go to the 'motivation and support' boards to look around and read other really overweight people's stories to keep myself going all I see are others telling them they need to 'eat more' or have a 'cheat day' or something....i've been averaging around 900-1100 calories a day and burning about 330 through exercise 7 days a week and my doctor has said 800 calories will be good to see improvement. It blows my mind when I read about others telling us very obese individuals they need to eat more to lose weight when those who went on and had surgery so they physically can't eat more than 800 calories a day drop 100lbs in six months, I don't see the difference. I don't need to eat more and I definitely don't need a cheat day, i've had waaaay too many of those my whole life and I know if i cheat once im very likely to keep doing it.0
-
Starvation mode is a bunch of B.S in my opinion. Also the whole "Your body will start to burn muscle instead of fat" uh no honey, your fat is stored energy, it's there for when your body needs it, it will only use muscle for energy as it's last resort.0
-
Starvation mode is a bunch of B.S in my opinion. Also the whole "Your body will start to burn muscle instead of fat" uh no honey, your fat is stored energy, it's there for when your body needs it, it will only use muscle for energy as it's last resort.
So you believe your body uses fat first, and then when that's gone (and only after it's gone), muscle?
Interesting.
Wrong, but interesting.0 -
I think people are just using the phrase wrong.
When most people say "you are going into starvation mode!!!!" They mean that the person is probably seeing a stall in weightloss from eating too little.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (I've experienced this too) that there is a threshold of calories (unique to every person) that if you go below, you will stall out. People are misinterpreting this as 'starvation mode' because they don't really know all the facts.
I am interested to know exactly what anybody's body uses for energy when there is a deficit in the daily calories.
There is no scientific evidence regarding eating too little stops weightloss, to do so violates the laws of physics.
I'm not saying it stops weight loss. I'm saying that, over time, it will lead to a decrease in metabolism (MBR/NEAT) which will make healthy weight loss more difficult to manage because it will reduce the number of calories the individual can eat and still lose weight which can make getting sufficient nutrient more difficult.
As the weeks and months go by, weightloss slows down, it is the way it works. However, many people think they can lose at exactly the same rate they did at the beginning and when they don't, they automatically think they are in starvation mode.
That is not starvation mode.
Agreed, it's not "starvation mode". We covered that earlier. It is, however, very possibly a "metabolic slow-down"...and I believe that is significantly impacted calorie consumption (or calorie consumption deficit). Or at least I see a very strong correlation in my own daily weight/net calorie calculation of my own NEAT/TDEE.0 -
2. the minute someone posts a "help, not losing " thread the TDEE 20 percenters (I came up with that name..pretty catch hugh? LOL) immediately start yapping about you must start eating more now...I do TDEE method myself but that does not mean that it is for everyone...ughhh just frustrating that first thing they say is "eat more" as if that will work for everyone....
It always confused me why people automatically suggest not using the MFP method when this is the site we are using. Most of the time the problem is the user, not MFP. If people choose correct goals and log exercise realistically, it works out to be the same.
Both methods have their advantages. I have recommended TDEE at times.
As for the "eat more". I am firmly entrenched on the "eat as much as you can and still lose weight" club. However the resounding "you need to eat more" on those questions frustrate me as well. I have seen it many times where people are not logging - how can you say they need to eat more when they don't really know how much. I've seen people who are constantly eating over their calorie goal but don't say that in their post. The other issue is I see crazy high calorie burn logs, eating back those calories and are still being told to eat more.
Sometimes the answer is eat more, particularly for long term success and I have seen people who break plateaus by upping calories temporarily. But it's not always the right answer.
Co-signing ^this.0
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
- 427 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