Starvation Mode

emmaslaton
emmaslaton Posts: 23 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hey guys,

So I have a question about my max calories a day. I would really like to see results faster, so would it be okay to maybe eat around 1,000 cals a day? or lower even? Or would my body go into starvation mode.

Also, I have a heart-rate tracker, so whenever I work out, I am given the exact amount of calories I had burned for that session. Should I eat those calories back? I just don't want my hard work to leave me because of confusion with calorie intake.

I'd love any advice or knowledge on the matter. I'm also pretty new here, so I'd love some friends to accompany me on the journey! :)

SW: 133
CW: 120
GW: 110
«13

Replies

  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    so would it be okay to maybe eat around 1,000 cals a day? or lower even?

    No, that is not okay.
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    Hey guys,

    So I have a question about my max calories a day. I would really like to see results faster, so would it be okay to maybe eat around 1,000 cals a day? or lower even? Or would my body go into starvation mode.

    Also, I have a heart-rate tracker, so whenever I work out, I am given the exact amount of calories I had burned for that session. Should I eat those calories back? I just don't want my hard work to leave me because of confusion with calorie intake.

    I'd love any advice or knowledge on the matter. I'm also pretty new here, so I'd love some friends to accompany me on the journey! :)

    SW: 133
    CW: 120
    GW: 110
    No, That is not ok.

    Also, those trackers are not 100% accurate.
  • frodoschmodo
    frodoschmodo Posts: 9 Member
    Here's the thing about starvation mode- It doesn't exist, at least as long as you have any body fat to speak of. Starvation mode is what happens when your body has nothing, not even fat to run off of, not just when you're not feeding it.

    With your goal weight, you will not EVER have to worry about starvation mode. You could eat 2 calories a day and still be just fine until you got severely underweight.

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    Also, if your goal is 1,000 or fewer (or anywhere below maintenance, really) calories it'd be in bad judgement not to eat back your exercised calories.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    No it's not...you can't get in enough nutrients at that level...protien, carbs and fats...let alone the micros...

    OP no it's not okay...ever.
  • endermako
    endermako Posts: 785 Member

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    No it's not...you can't get in enough nutrients at that level...protien, carbs and fats...let alone the micros...

    OP no it's not okay...ever.

    I agree not enough calories to feed your muscles. You're going to lose muscle and fat instead of just fat if you dont eat enough
  • renrosechild
    renrosechild Posts: 1 Member
    I was having trouble when I first started on MFP, thinking it was a good idea to stay way under my calories. I checked with a friend who is certified personal trainer. She said it is very important to eat your daily calories, including the ones you earn with exercise. Since I've been doing that, I'm consistently dropping pounds. It is a slow process, but losing slowly increases the chances that the weight will stay off. Good luck!
  • gabi_ele
    gabi_ele Posts: 460 Member
    There might not be starvation mode, but there are slow metabolisms and health consequences for not feeding your body properly. It's your choice, a quick fix or a proper healthy way to get to your goal. Oh and a lot of the health problems don't show up till much later in life....
  • MBrothers22
    MBrothers22 Posts: 323 Member
    Why would you even WANT to eat that little? You're torturing yourself for no reason. If you can post your height, age, and activity level we can give you a more reasonable calorie amount. You can't get the proper nutrition at 1000 calories or less and you'll likely lose muscle doing it.
  • tonynguyen75
    tonynguyen75 Posts: 418 Member
    500 calories of fat = 55g
    250 calories of carbs = 62g
    250 calories of protein = 62g

    You can mix and substitute within that. But to say 1000 calories is not enough to fit the bare minimum of macro nutrients and micro nutrients (assuming one eats nutrient dense foods) is naive. Can you function? Yes. Should you do it? Not unless you know what hell you are doing and can meet your nutrient goals. You'll have to eat very clean and very diverse.
  • tquill
    tquill Posts: 300 Member
    Why would you even WANT to eat that little? You're torturing yourself for no reason. If you can post your height, age, and activity level we can give you a more reasonable calorie amount. You can't get the proper nutrition at 1000 calories or less and you'll likely lose muscle doing it.

    Probably b/c summer time is here/close and people think they can fix years of bad habits in a matter of weeks.
  • madhatter2013
    madhatter2013 Posts: 1,547 Member
    How tall are you?
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    500 calories of fat = 55g
    250 calories of carbs = 62g
    250 calories of protein = 62g

    You can mix and substitute within that. But to say 1000 calories is not enough to fit the bare minimum of macro nutrients and micro nutrients (assuming one eats nutrient dense foods) is naive. Can you function? Yes. Should you do it? Not unless you know what hell you are doing and can meet your nutrient goals. You'll have to eat very clean and very diverse.

    No not naive...minimum requirements are just that...minimum and what about micros..I would like to see someone without vitamin pills get in the requirment for iron, vitamin A,D, C, B12, calcuim etc...on that.

    And do you really think that someone that is considering eating 1k or lower is looking at the macro's of food...what will happen is the carbs will be hit and the fat and the protien will not...you can't assume...

    I know women who are saying they want to eat 1k or below are going to be eating salads and fruit and low fat this and non fat that.

    How because I was one once...
  • pope66682
    pope66682 Posts: 249 Member
    1200 is bare minimum. You'll actually lose more by eating more and exercising more. Less calories is just bad for your health
  • pope66682
    pope66682 Posts: 249 Member
    Here's the thing about starvation mode- It doesn't exist, at least as long as you have any body fat to speak of. Starvation mode is what happens when your body has nothing, not even fat to run off of, not just when you're not feeding it.

    With your goal weight, you will not EVER have to worry about starvation mode. You could eat 2 calories a day and still be just fine until you got severely underweight.

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    Also, if your goal is 1,000 or fewer (or anywhere below maintenance, really) calories it'd be in bad judgement not to eat back your exercised calories.

    Completely wrong... just saying
  • tonynguyen75
    tonynguyen75 Posts: 418 Member
    500 calories of fat = 55g
    250 calories of carbs = 62g
    250 calories of protein = 62g



    No not naive...minimum requirements are just that...minimum and what about micros..I would like to see someone without vitamin pills get in the requirment for iron, vitamin A,D, C, B12, calcuim etc...on that.

    And do you really think that someone that is considering eating 1k or lower is looking at the macro's of food...what will happen is the carbs will be hit and the fat and the protien will not...you can't assume...

    I know women who are saying they want to eat 1k or below are going to be eating salads and fruit and low fat this and non fat that.

    How because I was one once...

    You can mix and substitute within that. But to say 1000 calories is not enough to fit the bare minimum of macro nutrients and micro nutrients (assuming one eats nutrient dense foods) is naive. Can you function? Yes. Should you do it? Not unless you know what hell you are doing and can meet your nutrient goals. You'll have to eat very clean and very diverse.

    While I agree with you that the OP is probably not qualified in anyway to go onto a 1000 calories diet, to have an absolute statement that one cannot fit what they need as a 120 lb woman, is likely incorrect. With enough salad's, fresh vegetables, fruits etc I think you can come very close to reaching your vitamin/mineral requirements. And like you said, a vitamin can work (if you assume the body can absorb them which is debatable).

    But we're just arguing semantics now.
  • _Resolve_
    _Resolve_ Posts: 735 Member
    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

    Go here and figure out your TDEE, also start to lift heavy things :smile:
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    Here's the thing about starvation mode- It doesn't exist, at least as long as you have any body fat to speak of. Starvation mode is what happens when your body has nothing, not even fat to run off of, not just when you're not feeding it.

    With your goal weight, you will not EVER have to worry about starvation mode. You could eat 2 calories a day and still be just fine until you got severely underweight.

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    Also, if your goal is 1,000 or fewer (or anywhere below maintenance, really) calories it'd be in bad judgement not to eat back your exercised calories.
    Wow.
    You are as wrong as wrong can be and glad others have chimed in so the OP doesnt get this very, very bad advice.
  • frodoschmodo
    frodoschmodo Posts: 9 Member
    Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot to mention that BMR (and thus TDEE and maintaining calories) go down as weight goes down.


    Never said it was healthy to eat that little. Just said starvation mode doesn't exist.
  • thavoice
    thavoice Posts: 1,326 Member
    Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot to mention that BMR (and thus TDEE and maintaining calories) go down as weight goes down.


    Never said it was healthy to eat that little. Just said starvation mode doesn't exist.
    Yeah, it basically does exist but not in a way most people think it does. People think that if they eat a little under their BMR it will put them into starvation mode, which it really wont.

    Severly eating way below for an extended period of time will. You said she could eat 2 calories a day and would never go into starvation mode.

    WRONG>
  • williams969
    williams969 Posts: 2,528 Member
    http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

    Go here and figure out your TDEE, also start to lift heavy things :smile:

    QFT. The IIFYM.com TDEE calculator is worth looking at, as well. Scooby *can* overestimate for some of us (particularly small females--YMMV). I will say starting a lifting program (Stronglifts, 5x5 type program, progressive overload) WILL make a slender body look even better, without losing a single pound, perhaps even gaining (@120lbs, I'm guessing you're already at a slim size).

    Oh, and lifting is just FUN! It only takes 2-3 days a week, 45 minutes at a time (or less--there's no rush--just consistency will give results). Nothing's better than feeling amazingly strong while fitting into your skinniest jeans. :flowerforyou:
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    500 calories of fat = 55g
    250 calories of carbs = 62g
    250 calories of protein = 62g



    No not naive...minimum requirements are just that...minimum and what about micros..I would like to see someone without vitamin pills get in the requirment for iron, vitamin A,D, C, B12, calcuim etc...on that.

    And do you really think that someone that is considering eating 1k or lower is looking at the macro's of food...what will happen is the carbs will be hit and the fat and the protien will not...you can't assume...

    I know women who are saying they want to eat 1k or below are going to be eating salads and fruit and low fat this and non fat that.

    How because I was one once...

    You can mix and substitute within that. But to say 1000 calories is not enough to fit the bare minimum of macro nutrients and micro nutrients (assuming one eats nutrient dense foods) is naive. Can you function? Yes. Should you do it? Not unless you know what hell you are doing and can meet your nutrient goals. You'll have to eat very clean and very diverse.

    While I agree with you that the OP is probably not qualified in anyway to go onto a 1000 calories diet, to have an absolute statement that one cannot fit what they need as a 120 lb woman, is likely incorrect. With enough salad's, fresh vegetables, fruits etc I think you can come very close to reaching your vitamin/mineral requirements. And like you said, a vitamin can work (if you assume the body can absorb them which is debatable).

    But we're just arguing semantics now.

    agreed absolutes should not be stated...I will remember that the next time and ensure I say OP you will probably most likely not.
  • BlueBombers
    BlueBombers Posts: 4,064 Member
    Good luck with that
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • frodoschmodo
    frodoschmodo Posts: 9 Member
    Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot to mention that BMR (and thus TDEE and maintaining calories) go down as weight goes down.


    Never said it was healthy to eat that little. Just said starvation mode doesn't exist.
    You said 1000 calories is more than reasonable. You're wrong. No its not and there really is no defending the logic you will attempt to chase.

    I stand by my point, but I DID word it badly and the way I worded it can be interpreted wrong. Hard to, but not impossible. 1000 calories is not reasonable to be healthy. 1000 calories IS reasonable for weight loss, if you choose to lose weight that fast and are being mindful of your nutrition.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member

    1,000 is more than reasonable AS LONG AS you're getting enough nutrients, you're only warned against eating under 1200 because it's difficult to get adequate nutrition at that level.

    No it's not...you can't get in enough nutrients at that level...protien, carbs and fats...let alone the micros...

    OP no it's not okay...ever.
    I concur. Do not deprive yourself of eating a healthy calorie goal. As long as you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Oh yeah, sorry. Forgot to mention that BMR (and thus TDEE and maintaining calories) go down as weight goes down.


    Never said it was healthy to eat that little. Just said starvation mode doesn't exist.
    You said 1000 calories is more than reasonable. You're wrong. No its not and there really is no defending the logic you will attempt to chase.

    I stand by my point, but I DID word it badly and the way I worded it can be interpreted wrong. Hard to, but not impossible. 1000 calories is not reasonable to be healthy. 1000 calories IS reasonable for wei ght loss, if you choose to lose weight that fast and are being mindful of your nutrition.
    No, it was not interpreted wrong. You are still advocating 1000 calories to lose weight. That is a very low calorie diet, which MFP does not support. It's plain bad advice.
  • RHachicho
    RHachicho Posts: 1,115 Member
    lol you can eat 2 cals a day and be fine. That's ridiculous. Even someone morbidly obese won't take months to starve to death. It's true that fat reserves can allow a greater deficit without health risks but the protection is not infinite.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.

Categories