Starvation Mode

I have a question. If we are not supposed to fall below the calorie goal that MFP has calculated for us based upon our goals, why do they always say "so and so completed their food diary and fell below their calorie goal"? This makes no sense to me. Why would they celebrate falling below the net goal if it is better that we do NOT fall below the goal? Am I just interpretting this incorrectly? If it is better to MEET the daily calorie goal than it is to fall below, why wouldn't they celebrate meeting the goal instead of falling short? I'm totally confused now. Anybody?

I've seen so much conflicting advice about this by now...but I've just found an explanation - finally! - that makes sense to me:

http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267

In a nutshell: even if your metabolism slows down somewhat when your body thinks it's not getting enough food, this slowing down is nowhere near enough to offset the impact of reduced calories. So if you're eating 1,200kcal but still not losing weight, there must be some other explanation: either water retention due to too much sodium, time of the month, medication or muscles in repair mode after exercise, or increased average body density due to muscle building. The kind of reduction in your metabolic rate that can really interfere with weight loss only occurs once you have completely depleted your fat stores - the pictures of the subjects of the famed 'Minnessota study' really hammered it home for me!

Having said that, I wouldn't want to go below 1,200kcal in food per day, but from now on I won't feel compelled to eat my 'exercise calories' unless I specifically feel like it

I've seen so much conflicting advice about this by now...but I've just found an explanation - finally! - that makes sense to me:

http://www.healthscience.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=512:are-you-in-the-starvation-mode-or-starving-for-truth&catid=102:jeff-novicks-blog&Itemid=267

In a nutshell: even if your metabolism slows down somewhat when your body thinks it's not getting enough food, this slowing down is nowhere near enough to offset the impact of reduced calories. So if you're eating 1,200kcal but still not losing weight, there must be some other explanation: either water retention due to too much sodium, time of the month, medication or muscles in repair mode after exercise, or increased average body density due to muscle building. The kind of reduction in your metabolic rate that can really interfere with weight loss only occurs once you have completely depleted your fat stores - the pictures of the subjects of the famed 'Minnessota study' really hammered it home for me!

Having said that, I wouldn't want to go below 1,200kcal in food per day, but from now on I won't feel compelled to eat my 'exercise calories' unless I specifically feel like it

I find this article troubling. Besides the unprofessional quality of it (mis-spelling, bad grammar), which is fine if you're posting on a forum, but not if you're an expert writing an article. there's no citation for any of the facts listed in it. He goes half way into multiple topics and he's just feeding the fear IMHO. Granted he's feeding it from the other side of the coin, but still feeding it.

A lot of people like to be on one side or the other in this topic. I come at this from a different, and maybe more reasonable, slant.

So if you ask, "Is starvation mode real?" I'll answer yes, absolutely it is.

BUT

If you ask if 90 % of the people out there understand what starvation mode is (including many so-called experts), then I'll say absolutely not. It's a simple matter of science.

The body does not exist in an all or nothing state, I.E. starvation mode doesn't mean you stop losing weight. On the contrary, by it's definition, you'll still be losing weight. The simple, and proven facts are this:
- In starvation mode, the body conserves it's energy stores by producing more of the hormones that store fat.
- In starvation mode, the body suppresses the the hormones that grow muscle and alternatively use some of the protein it would use for muscle growth to replace the energy that has been shuttled away for fat storage.
- In starvation mode, the body reduces the active metabolic rate by slowing down non-essential organ function and system.
- Starvation mode does not mean you "stop losing weight".
- In starvation mode the body actively looks for muscles that are not in use, and canabalizes that dormant lean tissue for energy production (to support the energy requirements lost).
- Depending on the level of deficit, starvation mode can begin anywhere from about 48 hours (for severe starvation, or the total lack of incoming calories), to about 12 days in the case of moderate underfeeding. Along with this fact, comes the extent of the starvation mode that occurs, I.E. the body won't kick hormonal changes into high gear all the time, depending on the level of under feeding, there can be small changes that are hardly (if at all) noticeable to a person trying to lose weight.
- Starvation mode is a function of available energy. In other words, the more extra energy you have, the harder it will be to reach a state where hormonal changes occur in earnest. That means that people with a lot of extra fat, can have far higher deficits without inducing systemic hormonal changes. I.E. larger deficits are more reasonable for someone with lots of fat, thus it's far harder for an obese person to reach true "starvation mode" than it is for someone looking to lose say... 20 lbs.

So I make a desperate plea. Can we PLEAAAAAASE stop saying that starvation mode is a myth? Pretty please? Can we rather say it's completely misunderstood by most people? And make our best attempt to educate instead of perpetuate the myth that starvation mode is some made up scary monster used to frighten people.

And for the love of all that is right and sane, can we please stop associating starvation mode with the number 1200, they have nothing to do with each other. 1200 calories is something completely different.

For all you guys that think it's a myth, show me 1, just 1 research project where controls are used (an actual experiment and not an observational study please), that doesn't show a drop in metabolic rate after prolonged underfeeding (to the time specifications for starvation mode I spoke on above), or a drop in the level of lipolysis in that same period. I see all kinds of articles, and blogs, and diatribes about it, but every study I've ever seen has these things in common. I.E. a drop in TDEE, a drop in lipolysis, and an increase in in vivo amino acid usage for energy (ketosis).

So why does MFP itself tell you exactly the opposite if you log under your calorie goal? Lowers metabolism, makes weight loss difficult, you must have at least 1200 calories minimum, yada yada yada...

I think you know the answer to that already.

that was happening to me to...but one thing i started to do thats helping and it may not be for everyone. but i drink a cup of unsweet silk soy milk..with one spender packet in it right be for bed. i know everything says nothing before bed but i find it really helps me...

Personally I don't subscribe to the "nothing before bed theory". I always have a snack before bed - usually skim milk & fruit or a 100 calorie snack pack if I want something sweet or salty. Hasn't affected my weight loss. I still believe it comes down to calories in vs calories out.

As for what you are eating getting stored as fat - that's only going to happen if you over eat. As long as you eat your up to your calorie goal each day, you will lose weight. Make sure you eat your exercise calories too.

I stay under 1200 calories every day for the past 15 weeks and have consistently lost weight.