reversing effects of eating too few calories?

deerpretzel
deerpretzel Posts: 3
in Health and Weight Loss
Hey everyone,
I just started using MFP about 5 weeks ago. I've lost about 14 lbs in that time, on about 1200 calories per day (minus 250 for exercise, making my net calories around 1000). I now see that it's harder for me to lose weight, even with exercise, and I read a bit online and saw I'm probably eating too few calories and wrecking my metabolism! I'm nervous, I now realize I should be eating around 1400 per day, but how will this affect my progress? Will it help speed my metabolism again, or have I already screwed up?

thanks.

Replies

  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    No, you are not wrecking your metabolism.
  • deerpretzel
    deerpretzel Posts: 3
    No, you are not wrecking your metabolism.

    Even if I'm "sending my body into starvation mode?" I constantly get this message on MFP when I complete diary entries...
  • odddrums
    odddrums Posts: 342 Member
    Congrats on the loss. Move your net up to 1200 for a week, then 1400 the next week. You might gain a pound back, don't worry about it because once your body gets used to it again you'll start losing again.

    You're not wrecking your metabolism, but if you keep doing this for months it could have negative side effects. Just raise them up 100-200 cals per week until you're netting 1400 and you'll be fine, or just go right to 1400. Again, you'll probably gain a pound or 2 back, but after you get back into the swing of it you'll still be at a deficit and start losing again in another week or 2.
  • theoriginaljayne
    theoriginaljayne Posts: 559 Member
    Your metabolism isn't ruined.

    It's probably still a good idea to increase your daily intake a little, though, as it can be difficult to get adequate nutrition when you're limited to 1200 calories. You may notice a slight initial gain, which is normal and temporary.

    (Also, adaptive thermogenesis will eventually occur if your intake is restricted long enough -- basically, your body will become more efficient, and your maintenance calories will be less than they could have been. Even then, though, the change wouldn't be irreversible.)
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    No, you are not wrecking your metabolism.

    Even if I'm "sending my body into starvation mode?" I constantly get this message on MFP when I complete diary entries...

    Are you severely underweight? No? Then you're not in Starvation Mode™, which is actually broscience and MFP should be ashamed that they perpetuate this myth.
  • focuseddiva
    focuseddiva Posts: 174 Member
    Very true... there was a study done that showed that two adults of the same age and gender and height and weight. they did a metabolic study. one of those people needed a higher amount to maintain their weight thsn the other person. what was the difference? the person who needed the lower calories to maintain had gained/lost weight over their entire life. the one who needed the higher calories had a stable weight. they said that a 150 pound person who was always 150 pounds could eat mroe calories and not gain than a person who had lost 50 lbs to get to 150. Precisely b/c the body adapts, conserves, and then fights to always regain weight at a higher set point.

    Which means I am totally scrwd. If they studied me, they'd find I need 200 calories to maintain, and if I increased it to 300 cals a day, I'd have to be cut out of the side of a house.
  • theoriginaljayne
    theoriginaljayne Posts: 559 Member
    Even if I'm "sending my body into starvation mode?" I constantly get this message on MFP when I complete diary entries...

    Starvation mode is a very, very controversial topic on the forums, mostly because:

    - Different people have different definitions of what "starvation mode" is
    - We still don't fully understand all of the body's responses to changing caloric intake
    - Sometimes some form of "starvation mode" is blamed for a symptom that actually results from an unnoticed but much simpler problem (for example, someone who thinks they're gaining weight on 1200 calories might be unintentionally underestimating their intake)

    Anyway, while there's nothing inherently wrong with *relatively* lower-calorie diets (obviously there's a point at which things do go very wrong), it is harder to get all your nutrients and they can be difficult to sustain if you're used to eating more.
  • stephv38
    stephv38 Posts: 203 Member
    For some more info you could look into Leigh Peele
  • deerpretzel
    deerpretzel Posts: 3
    Congrats on the loss. Move your net up to 1200 for a week, then 1400 the next week. You might gain a pound back, don't worry about it because once your body gets used to it again you'll start losing again.

    You're not wrecking your metabolism, but if you keep doing this for months it could have negative side effects. Just raise them up 100-200 cals per week until you're netting 1400 and you'll be fine, or just go right to 1400. Again, you'll probably gain a pound or 2 back, but after you get back into the swing of it you'll still be at a deficit and start losing again in another week or 2.

    Thanks!! thanks everyone, super helpful advice. I'll try and bump up my net to 1400...I'm right to assume that a slight gain after that is normal, yeah?
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    No, you are not wrecking your metabolism.

    Even if I'm "sending my body into starvation mode?" I constantly get this message on MFP when I complete diary entries...

    Are you severely underweight? No? Then you're not in Starvation Mode™, which is actually broscience and MFP should be ashamed that they perpetuate this myth.

    I personally think MFP probably has to message that to prevent being sued. Just a guess, but it makes sense to me.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    No, you are not wrecking your metabolism.

    Even if I'm "sending my body into starvation mode?" I constantly get this message on MFP when I complete diary entries...

    1) "starvation mode" doesn't mean what most people think it means
    2) you're not putting your body into "starvation mode" anyway
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Which means I am totally scrwd.

    You are drawing completely inappropriate conclusions from minimal and ill-defined data. However, it also seems clear you are hell bent on finding a way to label yourself as "screwed", so who am I to stand in your way...

    Cheers, and good luck.
  • cannibaldoll
    cannibaldoll Posts: 50 Member
    You haven't been doing it long enough to give yourself metabolic damage (which is real) and intaking 1,200 cals isn't low enough to do it- not for 5 weeks.

    Up your calorie intake, and just be patient, the weight will come off. You've already lost 14 lbs. The weight didn't come on over night, don't expect it to come off that way either. It takes time.
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    Very true... there was a study done that showed that two adults of the same age and gender and height and weight. they did a metabolic study. one of those people needed a higher amount to maintain their weight thsn the other person. what was the difference? the person who needed the lower calories to maintain had gained/lost weight over their entire life. the one who needed the higher calories had a stable weight. they said that a 150 pound person who was always 150 pounds could eat mroe calories and not gain than a person who had lost 50 lbs to get to 150. Precisely b/c the body adapts, conserves, and then fights to always regain weight at a higher set point.

    Which means I am totally scrwd. If they studied me, they'd find I need 200 calories to maintain, and if I increased it to 300 cals a day, I'd have to be cut out of the side of a house.

    No one can survive on 300 calories a day, much less gain weight. Stop playing the victim. :huh:

Categories