Advanced calorie deficits (Fair Warning - long post)

Appreciate the post. Thanks.

So what is your suggestion to figure out your TDEE and correct deficit without going into starvation mode? I don't have much to lose and my weight is back to its "happy place" where it likes to stay unless I really watch what I eat. The scale has been hovering around the same weight for a few weeks but I am scared to lower my deficit any more (I'm doing TDEE minus 15% and weight training plus cardio). But I really don't want to end up where I have to eat 1800 instead of 2100 to maintain after this is done because I have lowered my TDEE with dieting.

tagged to read again

- Whether you want to believe it or not, starvation mode is real
Many people may have the wrong idea of what starvation mode is, but that doesn't make it false, it makes their concept of it false. It's up to us as intelligent human beings to combat misinformation where ever we can. That means when someone spouts something wrong or silly about starvation mode. Speak up. But do it respectfully, and provide not just a response, but proof. There's plenty out there I can give you tons of studies if you need them. But just talking about the metabolic processes surrounding this state should be enough( no studies needed, these are facts about the body, not up for debate). What starvation mode isn't: it has nothing to do with 1200 calories, it doesn't happen after 1 day of not eating, and it is NOT starvation (two completely separate terms), starvation is a state, starvation mode is a process. Yes someone in prolonged, deep starvation mode can eventually starve, but except in the case of complete absence of food, starvation istself is extremely rare and someone giving you case studies on starvation to prove points on starvation mode are only showing their scientific ignorance.
Starvation mode IS, in it's simplest form, your body's metabolic processes recognizing, over the course of days or more likely weeks, that it's receiving far fewer calories than it needs. This triggers two major functions. First, when in starvation mode the body will reduce energy consumption wherever it can, starting with the least important (in it's opinion) functions first. Second the body will use any extra calories it can find and store them as fat. So when someone says starvation mode is a myth, please try to explain that it's not a myth, it's just difficult to prove, and you can't just blithely say someone's in that state without some serious analysis.

This needs to be immediately copy and pasted as a reply to any time someone spouts nonsensical gibberish for/against starvation mode.

This is a great read. I think if more people understood the science behind how the body works and that there is variation, MFP message boards would be a happier place. It's so silly when people are celebrating 10 pound weight losses in 1 week and inconsolable when they gain 4 pounds in 1 day. Why would we celebrate or mourn changes in water weight?

My take is that many people are trying to make things too simple and ironically make things more complex. The calories in versus calories out simplicity is pretty true when kept within limited bounds. Just like Newtonian physics is just fine for explaining how larger objects and reasonable speeds interact. You don't need quantum mechanics to predict how an apple falls to the ground.

People are making things more complex through three things. Making changes that are too big and expecting very consistent results and expecting results too quickly. You're calculated TDEE is probably 10% off your actual TDEE. That sucks. One could go through a much more complex process to figure it out. Or they can make small adjustments based on feedback.

Let me spell it out. Track your current caloric intake. Calculate TDEE. Calculate a cut that lets you lose a REASONABLE amount of weight. If you got out of 15% or 20% cut, you're probably going to push out of where the TDEE - x% model works. Just like how you can't use Newtonian physics to predict behavior of sub-atomic particles. You know where you are and where you think you should be. Work towards that goal in increments. If you take in 3500 calories a day today and need to be at 2100 calories, it may be best to work to 2100 over a couple weeks. Small changes.

Then you're at calculated TDEE minus a reasonable percentage. You're probably going to have a couple minor problems. You may not lose weight as fast as you want. Wait a little bit. Like a month. If you aren't losing weight or losing too fast, make a small adjustment. Like 50 to 100 calories a day. Then wait. Repeat. You're basically looking for the minor variation from calculated TDEE where you actually exist.

Your second problem is that you might be really hungry. Look at your protein and fat. Make some small adjustments. Wait. See if you feel better. Avoid massive changes to macros and calories just because you gained 2 pounds in one day.

If you make small changes, you probably won't fall into starvation mode or whatever. You used a reasonable starting point and made small changes. It's a lot harder to miss the sweet spot with fine adjustments.

Why don't people do this? They want results NOW! So and so diet says you can lose 10 pounds in a week. Gee that sounds better than waiting a month to see if something is working and then losing 4 pounds per month. Personally, I would rather figure out how to function for a lifetime than lose 10 pounds of water and glycogen NOW.

bump

Big Thumb Up.
However, I do have one question about this paragraph
"Starvation mode IS, in it's simplest form, your body's metabolic processes recognizing, over the course of days or more likely weeks, that it's receiving far fewer calories than it needs. This triggers two major functions. First, when in starvation mode the body will reduce energy consumption wherever it can, starting with the least important (in it's opinion) functions first. Second the body will use any extra calories it can find and store them as fat. So when someone says starvation mode is a myth, please try to explain that it's not a myth, it's just difficult to prove, and you can't just blithely say someone's in that state without some serious analysis. "

OP, how do we correlate this statement with dieting? True or false, but we all have to take in less food to lose weight and eventually our bodies learn how to deal with less amount food. And we usually do this for days, months even years...Would that be a type of "starvation mode"?

well, it's a good question, and again, not an easy answer. everyone is different, which is why I'm so big on the "tweak, test, analyze,retweak, repeat" method.

Remember what I wrote about the body making up for a small amount of deficit with fat stores, depending on your individual genetics, how fat is stored in your individual body, how much surface area fat you (again, as an individual) have that is accessible by those chemicals calling for energy, and depending on your own metabolic rates and pathways, it will vary. For most people, who are in decent shape and don't have a lot of fat to lose (for example a woman in the 18 to 22% Body Fat range or a man in the 14 to 18 % Body Fat range) you can probably get away with around 10% below TDEE as a deficit, but again, it's very individualized. And starvation mode isn't an on/off switch, it's really more of a gradual slope. When your body reaches a certain level you actually level out with loss vs. maintain. You will very rarely (see almost never) gain weight while in starvation mode unless you tend to eat drastically reduced calories for long periods followed by binges.

Another excuse for me to refeed. LOL

Nice review.

Add that the adaptive thermogenesis is usually not in reference to the expected known effects of too big a deficit, like potential muscle mass loss resulting in lower TDEE, and eating less means less TEF resulting in lower TDEE, or weighing less means you burn less moving around resulting in lower TDEE.

But the effect also mentioned above about body slowing down spontaneous or non-exercise activity, possibly big lowering of TDEE.
And just the plain effect of body getting more efficient with BMR, TEF, and TDEE, causing a lowering.
It's that last one the studies haven't shown clear evidence of how long it takes to recover from, meaning metabolism and TDEE are back up at expected level based on LBM and what you could have been if not in extreme deficit.
That's where the slipping in to maintenance can be so bad. Some grind right in to it with little weight loss the final few weeks, showing just how little their maintenance is going to be now.

Not sure how the logic works that if no loss for 3-4 weeks, and someone just decides the last 2 lbs isn't needed to be lost, how they think they can now eat 500 more daily just because MFP says maintenance is that high.

Totally agree!

This is where I'm at. I'm still trying to lose those last few pounds as I haven't lost since October so I know I'm floating around maintenance. I'm still tweaking every little thing and trying to be patient but it's very frustrating.

I'm starting to think I may need to give my body a break from being in calorie deficit mode.

Well, there's the kicker - you literally are not, right?

From potential TDEE most likely yes, from literal at the moment TDEE no.

So increase slowly. Diet break weeks are always great ideas. The more reasonable the deficit in the first place, the less likely they are needed frequently.

But everyone has their own stress level, and what level of combined stresses their body is going to start adapting.

Probably why some people can start eating clean, same calories, and start losing. They had some food sensitivity, perhaps not full allergy, but enough it caused their body stress.
Combined with perhaps intense frequent exercise (wrong time for in a diet) stress, and diet stress, and lack of sleep, and life, ect - too much.

In... because this is really interesting!

Bump, great read

great read!