Is Net or Total Calories the cause of starvation mode?

Options
CalynZeigs
CalynZeigs Posts: 34
in Health and Weight Loss
Just wondering, I am nursing a toddler so not tracking calories much (about once a week just to see what's up). Normally when I do I hit pretty close to my goal net calories. However today my net calories were about 500 below my goal (said toddler is sick and I think it's just not being hungry from being so exhausted earlier in the day, I made up most the calories that are there at dinner) had 787 net calories- total calories consumed was 1515 though. Last week when I tracked my calories consumed was 2072 and my net calories were 1258. I've only been exercising again consistently for about 2 months. As of today lost 3lbs and 2 dress sizes. Originally lost 5lbs quickly after starting exercise, then put it back on but lost the dress sizes as the weight went back on, so assuming the returning 5lbs was in muscle, now still down 2 dress sizes and down 3lbs again.

What exactly triggers starvation mode? I've always lost weight through exercise, never through dieting or calorie counting- but I think I'm probably going to want to try dieting this time once baby is done nursing (I've never been this overweight before, need to loose about 50lbs to get to my ideal. And I've always been able to run before, but can't atm). The whole starvation backlash deal is not something I want to be fighting on top of already trying to loose weight, though. Information/explanation of what it is and what can trigger it and whether I should be watching net or total calories intake and etc... would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Replies

  • CalynZeigs
    CalynZeigs Posts: 34
    Options
    Or if anyone could point me towards some trustworthy info about, that would equally be appreciated.
  • pluckabee
    pluckabee Posts: 346 Member
    Options
    Total calories.

    The 'starvation mode' people talk about on this site is just about getting enough essential nutrition to keep yourself healthy. The general guideline is that if you are eating under 1200 you probably aren't getting enough.

    If you are worried make sure that you eat enough fats, as essential fatty acids cant be produced by the body and we need to get them from our diet. Many people on low calorie diets experience a plateau and this is likely from inadequate fat intake.

    That said, excessive exercise and netting really really low calories probably isn't good for you either, but has no bearing on how much essential nutrition you got from what you already ate.
  • CalynZeigs
    CalynZeigs Posts: 34
    Options
    Total calories.

    The 'starvation mode' people talk about on this site is just about getting enough essential nutrition to keep yourself healthy. The general guideline is that if you are eating under 1200 you probably aren't getting enough.

    If you are worried make sure that you eat enough fats, as essential fatty acids cant be produced by the body and we need to get them from our diet. Many people on low calorie diets experience a plateau and this is likely from inadequate fat intake.

    That said, excessive exercise and netting really really low calories probably isn't good for you either, but has no bearing on how much essential nutrition you got from what you already ate.

    So as long as I'm getting a decent nutrient intake and not actually starving myself it should be fine? Thank you, going through the posts on here starvation backlash has came up a lot and I just couldn't find enough real info on it to figure it out.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    Or if anyone could point me towards some trustworthy info about, that would equally be appreciated.

    If you're looking for trustworthy information about reductions of a couple of hundred calories a day in your metabolic rate when reducing your food intake then you'll find some clinical studies that detect this and others that don't.

    If you're looking for something about not being able to lose weight on a large calorie deficit I have yet to find anything credible or scientific. You won't find "net calories" in anything scientific.

    There may be some evidence that an excessive deficit of calories due to a combination both high levels of exercise and reduced calorie intake causes stress and other factors that impede weight loss, but Biggest Loser shows us that people continue to lose weight on high deficit brought about by such a regime. If you cut intake 12.5% and add 12.5% of exercise you'll lose weight, perhaps initially a bit slower than -25% on the intake with no exercise (evidence based statement).

    Allowing 300 calories for breastfeeding you might be expending 2000 a day so eating 1600 should deliver a weight loss. Try that for a decent length of time and adjust down or up depending how it goes.
  • CalynZeigs
    CalynZeigs Posts: 34
    Options
    Or if anyone could point me towards some trustworthy info about, that would equally be appreciated.

    If you're looking for trustworthy information about reductions of a couple of hundred calories a day in your metabolic rate when reducing your food intake then you'll find some clinical studies that detect this and others that don't.

    If you're looking for something about not being able to lose weight on a large calorie deficit I have yet to find anything credible or scientific. You won't find "net calories" in anything scientific.

    There may be some evidence that an excessive deficit of calories due to a combination both high levels of exercise and reduced calorie intake causes stress and other factors that impede weight loss, but Biggest Loser shows us that people continue to lose weight on high deficit brought about by such a regime. If you cut intake 12.5% and add 12.5% of exercise you'll lose weight, perhaps initially a bit slower than -25% on the intake with no exercise (evidence based statement).

    Allowing 300 calories for breastfeeding you might be expending 2000 a day so eating 1600 should deliver a weight loss. Try that for a decent length of time and adjust down or up depending how it goes.

    So with some detecting it and some not, that probably means that it has more to do with differences in individual bodies and who ended up in the test group then in what was actually being tested, right? So basically as long as I try to be healthy about exercise and what I'm eating it it's not really an issue? I've been exercising 1.5-3hrs a day weekdays, burning anywhere from 500-900 calories depending. According to the calculator at http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm my basal calories expended are 1454, so your calculations sound solid enough. Thank you for the help, the whole thing is confusing atm. Previously I've always just ran until I looked the way I wanted, never had to put much thought into it =p I really appreciate the help.
  • pluckabee
    pluckabee Posts: 346 Member
    Options
    Didn't read the OP! Nevermind!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    The studies use different methods to measure metabolic rate and other variations like how the food is provided / measured. So as well as individual variations in the people tested (men, women, young, old, obese, healthy etc etc) the scientific methods are not identical.

    It appears that in general the spontaneous physical activity levels drop with dieting, more than any "controversial" changes in resting metabolic rate. So if you're active and focussed on that I would expect you can overcome it.

    Main thing is not to go mad with eating 500 calories and flogging on a treadmill to the tune of 1000 calories a day. If you eat a reasonable amount of quality food and move about a lot you're likely to lose weight, as you know from previous experience.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    If running worked for you before, why have you decided this time to change your diet instead?

    The lady said...
    (I've never been this overweight before, need to loose about 50lbs to get to my ideal. And I've always been able to run before, but can't atm)

    :-)
  • CalynZeigs
    CalynZeigs Posts: 34
    Options
    The studies use different methods to measure metabolic rate and other variations like how the food is provided / measured. So as well as individual variations in the people tested (men, women, young, old, obese, healthy etc etc) the scientific methods are not identical.

    It appears that in general the spontaneous physical activity levels drop with dieting, more than any "controversial" changes in resting metabolic rate. So if you're active and focussed on that I would expect you can overcome it.

    Main thing is not to go mad with eating 500 calories and flogging on a treadmill to the tune of 1000 calories a day. If you eat a reasonable amount of quality food and move about a lot you're likely to lose weight, as you know from previous experience.

    Makes sense =)
  • CalynZeigs
    CalynZeigs Posts: 34
    Options
    Thank you both again, I truly do appreciate the help and your taking the time to reply and help.

Categories