Starvation Mode Brain Games

I'm at the 460 mark and recently went on a serious weight loss program using MFP .

I read somewhere that you brain can send your body signals that you are starving and you'll actually gain weight if that occurs . This happens when you cut your daily calorie intake . I went with the prescribed 2,480 calorie intake suggested by MFP .

Has anyone had this happen ?

How serious is it to worry about ?

Thx
Gonzo

Replies

  • jennifries227
    jennifries227 Posts: 113 Member
    If you're following the MFP guidelines for your calories then you'll be just fine. If you try to eat like 400 calories a day, you won't be.
    Eating 2480/day won't lead you to starve, though you might feel like it the first couple days while your body adjusts and while you adjust to healthier foods.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I read somewhere that you brain can send your body signals that you are starving and you'll actually gain weight if that occurs .

    That would be nonsense. A man who ate literally nothing for over a year didn't have that experience.
  • Yeah, because obviously when you're starving, your body obviously decides not to use all this excess fat and muscle on your body to burn instead of food111!!!1!111!!

    You're better off eating more, though.

    edit: with that i mean that it's better to just not eat too little. 2480 seems fine though????
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    While it DOES exist it is extremely rare. If you're eating over 2000 calories a day then this is not an issue.

    Good luck in making those changes, you've made a great start!
  • jko90s
    jko90s Posts: 25
    2480 is more calories than im taking now. You wont enter starvation mode with those numbers
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    I read somewhere that you brain can send your body signals that you are starving and you'll actually gain weight if that occurs .

    That would be nonsense. A man who ate literally nothing for over a year didn't have that experience.

    I think the OP is getting a little worried about biological set point.

    There is a line of thinking that the body / mind craves homeostasis and has very efficient regulators in place to protect body weight and fat (the whole evolutionary survival thing). Thus when you start dieting these fight back as the body perceives it is starving and drives food seeking behaviours and over eating to correct that - hence why keeping weight off can be so difficult. Whilst a person may have lost weight and be happy and healthy the body still perceives starvation and it being at a weight it should not be and thus tries to compel eating more.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Set point theory never seemed to gain traction, or evidence.

    " you'll actually gain weight if that occurs" - doesn't happen in a calorie deficit.
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    Set point theory never seemed to gain traction, or evidence.

    " you'll actually gain weight if that occurs" - doesn't happen in a calorie deficit.

    For sure.

    That said there is something to be said for certain mechanisms in the body fighting the imposing of a deficit (the more severe the deficit the greater the fight back) and trying to force eating more on an unconscious level over time. I think that's partly the reason why so many people go through the frustrating diet - over eat - diet - over eat cycle time and again.

    Traditional "dieting" sets up a fight with the body where it may be better to work with your body or have a more gentle "lifestyle" approach.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    There is some evidence that a bigger (possibly faster) weight loss ultimately delivers a better long term result in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
    Conclusion
    Collectively, findings indicate both short- and long-term advantages to fast initial weight loss. Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers.

    but it is hard to untangle whether rate is important in itself or just getting a weight loss in the bag before diet fatigue sets in.
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    There is some evidence that a bigger (possibly faster) weight loss ultimately delivers a better long term result in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/
    Conclusion
    Collectively, findings indicate both short- and long-term advantages to fast initial weight loss. Fast weight losers obtained greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance, and were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers.

    but it is hard to untangle whether rate is important in itself or just getting a weight loss in the bag before diet fatigue sets in.

    Yes, the physiology of that particular conundrum is interesting.

    From a psychological view If we look at traditional dieting it usually puts up degrees of deprivation / restriction against willpower. I don't think that human beings are very good at dealing with deprivation in general and compared to willpower which is a much weaker resource deprivation will generally win out over time.

    I guess with a short hardcore diet some people know there is a much shorter period of restriction to face and so they have greater adherence than if they had to face a much longer period expect to a lesser degree.

    Whether either is ultimately superior in long term weight regulation thereafter would be good to know with additional studies.
  • gonegonzo
    gonegonzo Posts: 22 Member
    I'm not following this info . A bit overwhelming .

    Gonzo
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    I'm not following this info . A bit overwhelming .

    Gonzo

    So try asking your question again. Are you afraid your brain is being affected by not eating enough?
  • caroldavison332
    caroldavison332 Posts: 864 Member
    If you try to loose all your weight in 9 months by going under at 1,200 calories diet you won't loose. Weight loss is a marathon/life style. Don't do anything that you wouldn't do for the next 70 years.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Briefly:

    1 You won't lose weight if you are actually eating less food than your body needs to maintain its weight

    2 At your weight you can and should still eat a reasonable amount of food; start with MFP's recommendation

    3 If you cut too much you may experience psychological effects, but those won't prevent you from losing as long as you follow point 1.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    Briefly:

    1 You won't lose weight if you are actually eating less food than your body needs to maintain its weight

    2 At your weight you can and should still eat a reasonable amount of food; start with MFP's recommendation

    3 If you cut too much you may experience psychological effects, but those won't prevent you from losing as long as you follow point 1.
    Your 1st point seems to indicate that a deficit doesn't equate to weight loss.
  • levitateme
    levitateme Posts: 999 Member
    I'm at the 460 mark and recently went on a serious weight loss program using MFP .

    I read somewhere that you brain can send your body signals that you are starving and you'll actually gain weight if that occurs . This happens when you cut your daily calorie intake . I went with the prescribed 2,480 calorie intake suggested by MFP .

    Has anyone had this happen ?

    How serious is it to worry about ?

    Thx
    Gonzo

    No one is starving on nearly 2,500 calories a day, and besides, "starvation mode" does not exist. If you are eating a deficit you will lose weight. Eat the amount that MFP is telling you to eat, but make sure you are ACTUALLY eating that much by weighing and measuring everything.

    I checked the BMR for someone who weighs 460 (I guessed height and age and sex) and it's upwards of 3,000 calories (3,600 for a 30 year old man who is 5'10" to be exact). Just eat less than 3,000 calories a day. At every 50 lb loss, reassess your calories goals.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Briefly:

    1 You won't lose weight if you are actually eating less food than your body needs to maintain its weight

    2 At your weight you can and should still eat a reasonable amount of food; start with MFP's recommendation

    3 If you cut too much you may experience psychological effects, but those won't prevent you from losing as long as you follow point 1.
    Your 1st point seems to indicate that a deficit doesn't equate to weight loss.

    OOPS! Nice catch!

    --> You won't NOT lose weight if you are eating less food than your body needs to maintain its weight.
  • gonegonzo
    gonegonzo Posts: 22 Member
    Thank you all for your input.

    Gonzo