Starvation mode is a myth!

Good point and well explained. The real issue with extremely low calorie intake is that it can cause issues long term and does not lend itself to long term weight loss. You are absolutely correct in your assessment that measurement is the primary issue and over accounting of exercise calories is a likely problem. I usually try to eat back about 1/2 of mine rather than all. Why? Well, it is key to remember, if I just sit on my posterior and do NOTHING I'm burning some calories..... So, if I regularly burn say 50 calories for sitting and doing nothing for an hour and instead burn 200 calories walking my dog (which is funny... my dog is relatively athletic, but I seldom walk a consistent 4 mph while walking her... she likes to stop and sniff and eliminate too much)... But at any rate, we put in our diaries that we burned "200 calories walking for an hour" while in actuality, we only burned an extra 150 calories because we are only replacing our sedentary level with a more strenuous activity... It is 200-50 ... not 200.

No starvation please. Because "Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation" and that is not good.:blushing:

Eh, a couple bad first dates will cause the same thing. Why worry?

Im ordering a food scale now. My daughter was showing me the difference in portion between using measuring and using the scale ...now Ive seen the light and am changing my method.

Wrong answer.

I am assuming you are referring to the amino acids that are used in making glucose in the fat-burning mode, and presumably the case is you eat a low enough carb diet..

The preferentially used amino acids come from LABILE proteins, like enzymes and smooth muscles. Only as a very last resort will skeletal muscle or brain protein be used.

Yes, gluconeogenesis is the term your describing.

Surely you mean "Wrong Word" right?

the conclusion you reached using "smooth muscle" is exactly what I described. Did I say skelatal? No.

Fine your body breaks down amino acids for energy.

I use VLC to mean very low carb but nevertheless, I won't argue your point because all I have is N=1 to go from.

I don't think that I've EVER eaten very low CALORIES, ha! I've seen some people on here who eat 700 a day AND workout (not saying net cal). I don't know how they do it cos I'm a girl who eats!

For about 18 months in my mid-20s, I couldn't shift some weight that I'd have preferred not having, though I was eating nothing above 1400 calories a day -- tracking religiously -- and I worked out the norm for back then: running 3mi/ 3x/wk and ST twice a week with girlie weights (you know what I mean, it was the early 90s).

I was NOT told that I was in starvation mode but I basically said, 'I'm tired of feeling restricted' and began eating more. I am SURE that they were UNhealthy choices. Knowing myself, it was probably pizza. I went from 122 to 112 doing the same workouts, the only difference was I'd upped my calorie intake to 1800-2000 a day.

::shrugs:: This lasted years and I never dropped down to where I'm SUPPOSED to eat again (nothing over 1400) -- unless I'm trying to lean out but even then, I eat more than what 'they' say I should.

I think there's something going on with leaning when we fuel their workouts.

I also think when most people say they've plateaued, they're not tracking their intake and expenditure correctly, 100% of the time. But I *was* tracking and I dunno. What they say to do was definitely not 'my' zone!

MFP right away had me at 1200 cal per day. i have mostly stuck to that and have been losing like im supposed to. i weigh and measure everything i can. there are days that i go over (a few times alot) and most days i am under. i exercise and eat almost all of my calories back. i have read so many posts that say not to go that low and heres all these bad reasons why. well every week i am down just like im supposed to be and i dont feel tired or weak or starving. i averaged out my calorie intake from day 1 until now and i average 1500 cal a day without counting my exercise. ive tried going by my tdee and all this other scientific stuff. But what works for me is if im losing im gonna keep doing what im doing if i stop or gain well i adjust as needed.

im not thin this is my second time on mfp and this time im going all the way. the difference is this time i figured out how to make it work for me.

thank you for this post OP. it was needed!!

I have a guy at work who loves to remind me every day that he is on a low carb (10 carbs or less a day) diet. He also loves to tell me that my continuous cardio will stop be from burning calories. IE being on an ARC machine for 30 minutes means after 10 my body will no longer burn calories.

1st, why the HECK would anyone do 10g or less of carbs a day? I'm a ketogenic diabetic who rarely does less than 40, and in-order to do HIIT or strength-training often have up to 75 ...

2nd ... regarding the stoppage of burning calories from continuous exercise ...

TL;DR but i thought id put my 2 cents worth in anyway


okay so we should all know that we get our energy from food (i mean, calories are literally just units of energy). we need food to live an all that. but as far as i know from experience (and health class), starvation mode appears to just be a plateau from the lack of vitamins that encourage the metabolic cells to do their work. without these, we can't turn fat (or protein or carbs) into useful forms of energy. and we all know that these metabolic cells go for the carbs first, then the fat and then the protein.

once again, starvation mode is just a lack of vitamins.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS. You can get in all the micro nutrients you need on a low caloric intake. What vitamins are you referring to specifically? How much of said vitamin do you need to encourage the metabolic cells? And what are the metabolic cells? I've taken a lot of bio courses and I haven't a clue of what you are talking about.

Vitamin B1, B2, B3, B6 and B9 all contribute to the process of metabolism. (:
It really depends how low calorie we are talking about, here. I was thinking like less than 600 and also, once again, it really matters on what kind of food you are eating. I guess I was kind of basing this off of my diet, but most people here probably eat really well haha.

OP i literally love you

I have a guy at work who loves to remind me every day that he is on a low carb (10 carbs or less a day) diet. He also loves to tell me that my continuous cardio will stop be from burning calories. IE being on an ARC machine for 30 minutes means after 10 my body will no longer burn calories.

1st, why the HECK would anyone do 10g or less of carbs a day? I'm a ketogenic diabetic who rarely does less than 40, and in-order to do HIIT or strength-training often have up to 75 ...

2nd ... regarding the stoppage of burning calories from continuous exercise ...

I tend to try to ignore his little statements like that. He can be quite the pain in the *kitten*.

If starvation mode didn't exist, how did Hurley stay so fat on the island on LOST?!

why do you think people kept "disappearing"?

:drinker:

Great post, OP!

To those who don't agree, watch Naked and Afraid on Discovery Channel.

Interesting commentary and post.

TL;DR
starvation mode isn't easy to get into
but you can really harm your health if you consistently undereat

namaste

While I agree that eating very low levels of calories for very long periods of time can have negative longterm consequences, a mythical mode where fat loss stops and the body fuels itself on unicorn tears and good intentions simply doesn't exist! If you don't eat for long enough, it will kill you, but you'll lose weight until it does.

I'll never understand why people even came up with the phrase "starvation-mode" ... and why so-many have differing ideas of what it is.

The body never really stops utilizing fat-stores. True, depending on your diet and chosen exercise you can burn varying levels of fat - some more, some less ... and it's true you can catabolize lean tissue if you're uninformed, but you won't stop burning fat.

Even with adaptive thermogenesis you don't stop burning fat, you simply burn less overall than if you ate more and increased your BMR/RMR.