STARVATION MODE

So what is the Starvation Mode Myth? It goes like this:

"If you don't eat enough, you won't lose weight!"

see the problem here. This isn't what people claim starvation mode is.




but he conclusion of the article is very sensible re-read it below if you didn't catch it the frst time

Eating more over time has allowed me to exercise more so that, as a result, my rate of weight loss hasn't gone down as much as it could have as my calories have gone up. Plus I'm happy because I'm fitter and healthier.

In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things.

Nicely put. I for one enjoy getting my metabolism up and running strong. I am not a big guy. Small boned and 5' 6". At a minimum i need to eat 1,500 and 1,600 calories 6 days a week and one day a week at 2,200 to 2,400 calories before exercise and still am losing at a solid rapid pace. I do eat back all exercise calories plus some occasionally.

When I hit maintenance I will be able to enjoy a 2,400 calories day before exercise and maintain quite easily. I can't imagine driving my metabolism down so low I have to basically eat a restricted diet just to maintain.

I finally got my wife to understand this and she now also eats the exact same as me and is now averaging a 1 to 1.5 pound loss weekly.

It is a great post, and it makes sense, but can i get one thing straight?

When i first started using MFP, it suggested a calorie goal of 1200. I stuck to a NET calorie goal of 1200 (i cycle a lot so made sure i always got back up to 1200) and for 2 weeks my weight didn’t budge. I then, after reading all the articles about starvation mode, upped my calorie goal to 1400, just to make sure i wasn't going under. Since then i have lost weight, but obviously this may not be down to me upping my calories.

So what i want to know is, from reading your article, there is more chance of me losing weight if i put my calorie goal back down to a NET of 1200, and as long as i stick to 1200 i should, in theory, lose more weight than having a goal of 1400.

I appreciate everybody is different, but from what you say, the chances of going into so called starvation mode are unlikely.

Hope that makes sense.

So what i want to know is, from reading your article, there is more chance of me losing weight if i put my calorie goal back down to a NET of 1200, and as long as i stick to 1200 i should, in theory, lose more weight than having a goal of 1400.

well you risk being mal-nurished and slowing down your metabolism. Then if say you have an off day and eat 1800 calories with a slower metabolism you risk storing more as fat.

In therory, yes the less you eat the more you lose. You could also go on a 800 calorie diet and lose even more weight. 500 would be even better. see the problem here.

Your objectives have to be more complexe than reducing the number on your scale. Things you should strive for:
-Health
-Beign fit
-Fat loss
-Eating healthy

you can`t do all that by eating an highly reduced caloric diet.

If your goals are:
-loss weight even if it is muscle
-be mal-nurished and un-healthy
-have low energy

then a low calorie diet is perfect for you.

Great post! Thanks for sharing

I think this is THE KEY point of this whole thing:

"In the end, it's important to consume enough calories that you have the energy to perform the daily activities you want to and to keep your body healthy. Otherwise, it's self-defeating. After all, the point of losing weight is to be healthier and to get our lives back. It's not to starve ourselves to the point of malnutrition and have so little energy we can't go out and do fun things."

=========================================================================================
You do seem very confused! So many issues with your post.

-You can`t target your gut for weight loss, you body will chose whatever fat it wants.
-4 days isn`t a significant amount of time to worry about not seeing results.
-o.5lbs incease is normal daily fluctuation
-1200 to 1500 calories is not enough for a big guy, eat more and eat healthy
-re-read the article, it actually tells you to eat more.

The problem with this debate is a probelm called stasis, where either side of the argument are not arguing about the same thing. It is important to define the parameters of what starvation mode is before we can debate it. 1stly nobody claims starvation mode will make you stop losing weight .Often you see a STARVATION MODE MYTH article say, its not true that starvation makes you stop losign weight, we know that, lets not debate it.

As stated in the article starvation mode reduces your metabolism, and we don`t want that, think hungry african children = not healthy. Our goal is to be fit, healthy and live long, you have to eat enough to operate your body properly to acheive those goals.

Another probelm with starvation mode is that you will lose muscle mass along with fat. we want to loose weight in the form of fat, not muscle. You need muscle to stay lean once you reach you target weight.

KKellam1: I don`t know your specifics, but I have a feeling you should target to eat 2200 to 2500 calories (if you exercise 4-5 times a week)
Edited by kevanos on Thu 03/10/11 09:16 AM
=========================================================================================

I appreciate your response. My comment about belly fat wasn't so much that I was targeting that, just more that I felt like that was one of the reserves that my body might burn before muscles, etc. In fact, it has to a degree (I have lost 2 inches around the waist). To losing muscle mass, I walk a LOT (3-5 miles a day at work and another 5 or so per day for exercise), so at least the bottom half of my torso gets a workout. I have begin light weights and other movement to try to build some tone in the upper half. Nothing too taxing so far, sonce I began this journey as a pretty overweight, out of shape guy.

To the calories...MFP recommends 2,000 a day for me (before exercise). Siince I made a change in my habits a month ago, 2,000 just seems really high. And not so much just as a number. I eat consistently through the day and make pretty healthy choices (salads, fruit, chicken, turkey, pretzels for snacks). Nothing fried, nothing with sauces, no ice cream or sweets. I am always full, never craving and have more energy now than when I started this quest. So I can't get my head wrapped around raising the calories because it appears that I would either have to eat more - past when I am full - or either eat less healthy foods to get the calorie count up.

That's where my confusion comes from. Logically, I follow the arguement. I just can't see how to implement it without going contrary to what my body seems to be telling me. And without undoing some of the changes that I've made to my eating choices.

Thank you.

for reference colombiana, I've written a blog, one of my posts covers calorie deficits (and another is on the short and long term fasting phenomena), feel free to browse it.

http://banks1850-machinations.blogspot.com/2011/02/calorie-deficits.html


Just so you know, I almost never write stuff without first researching it. I don't always cite the research, but you can always ask me how or what info I have on something. I usually have it squirreled away somewhere or know where to find it.