starvation mode?

Strawberry34
Strawberry34 Posts: 22
edited September 26 in Health and Weight Loss
Ok, so I think I read somewhere that if you eat less than 1,200 calories per/day, that your body goes into starvation mode. Does anyone know for sure if that number is correct? And if this is for everyone or just the average size person? And if you exercise, if the calories you have burned subtracted from the calories you have eaten make it less than 1,200, do you need to eat more to keep from going into starvation mode?

Replies

  • christina_michelle
    christina_michelle Posts: 225
    look at big posts in weightloss and nutrition. I swear I see like three of these questions today.
  • ebkins7
    ebkins7 Posts: 427 Member
    As a general rule a person should NET AT LEAST 1200 calories per day! This will help the body recover from workouts and avoid starvation (or survival) mode.
  • deesdigitaldelight
    deesdigitaldelight Posts: 53 Member
    I believe I read somewhere that eating less than 1000 calories is what puts your body into starvation mode. I look forward to seeing what other information is posted on this subject
  • aeckels616
    aeckels616 Posts: 210 Member
    1200 calories is not a magic number, and is one of the biggest myths in the nutrition circles. Starvation mode can happen if you consistently take in less than half of what your body expends during the day, for a long period of time. Obviously, this will vary for everyone depending on height, weight and activity level.

    The reason trainers and nutritionists still stick to "1200 calories" is that it's pretty difficult to get the actual NUTRITION your body needs on less than that without supplements or very careful eating. Still, it can certainly be done.
  • Strawberry34
    Strawberry34 Posts: 22
    So to keep this from happening, out NET needs to be more than half of the calories it takes for our body's to function?
  • aeckels616
    aeckels616 Posts: 210 Member
    Yes. If you go less than that for one day it's not going to mess anything up, but for a consistent goal, you need to be taking in at least half of what you're expending.
  • Strawberry34
    Strawberry34 Posts: 22
    Ok, thanks a lot!! :)
  • aeckels616
    aeckels616 Posts: 210 Member
    If you do find yourself on less than 1200 calories regularly (I do - I'm short) you should be on supplements to be sure you're getting the vitamins and minerals you need to support your body. Nutritional deficiencies can happen even on high calorie intake, and they can be very dangerous. Also be aware that if you're on any prescription medicines, there's a good chance they are causing a deficiency of some kind that your doctor may not even be aware of because the drug companies are not required to disclose that information.
  • novatri
    novatri Posts: 262 Member
    I think everyone's starvation level is different and always in a state of flux. I doubt one day below 1200 will automatically turn your fat burning body against you.
  • shreddingit
    shreddingit Posts: 1,133 Member
    starvation happens when your body has no more fat to hang on to...in this modern day starvation is unlikely...
    now if you eat little and workout too much you wont function properly but you wont be starving....until you have no more fat that is...
  • deverez
    deverez Posts: 34 Member
    Is 'starvation mode' necessarily a bad thing? When your body runs out of its readily available energy (glucose), it turns to burning glycogen (stored in liver and muscles). When glycogen runs out, it turns to body fat.
  • peacehawk
    peacehawk Posts: 421 Member
    Thanks for that information. It's good to know that. I'm finding myself looking at the nutritional content of what I've eaten which is listed on my information each time I make a food entry. I've only been on this for a few days but I can already see some clear nutritional deficiency trends, no matter how many calories I do or don't take in. I also get to see where I'm ahead of the game. I've already, based on those numbers, made an effort to increase my calcium intake and reduce my fat intake based upon the numbers in this tool.
  • aeckels616
    aeckels616 Posts: 210 Member
    Is 'starvation mode' necessarily a bad thing? When your body runs out of its readily available energy (glucose), it turns to burning glycogen (stored in liver and muscles). When glycogen runs out, it turns to body fat.

    People can mean a few different things when they use the term "starvation mode." A lot of people around here mean the "catatonic state" that your body can go into once it has burned through your fat reserves. At this point, it starts to burn muscle instead of fat, lowering the body's quantity of muscle mass in an effort to slow metabolism and conserve calories (less muscle mass = less calories burned). That is a bad thing - you don't actually want your body to decrease muscle mass, but not really something most people on this site have to worry about since studies indicate that you have to get down to about 5% body fat before this really happens.

    When I use the term "starvation" I'm usually referring to a "Starvation Diet" - which is eating less than 50% of the body's daily need. This can also be a bad thing with several detrimental effects - both psychological and physical. It's similar to anorexia.
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    I beg to differ regarding the statement that a 50% calorie restriction is necessarily "a bad thing" and "like anorexia". There are indications that a calorie restriction of about 50% of daily calorie expenditure (between 1800 - 2000 calories) can have beneficial effects, provided the person practicing strives for truly optimal nutrition.

    CRON:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRON-diet

    It is far from true that severe calorie restriction is "necessarily" like anorexia. Anorexics do not care about the nutritional composition of what they eat, if you practice CRON you have to.

    Also I assume your referring to catabolism and not to a "catatonic" state, because that is something else.
  • aeckels616
    aeckels616 Posts: 210 Member
    I beg to differ regarding the statement that a 50% calorie restriction is necessarily "a bad thing" and "like anorexia". There are indications that a calorie restriction of about 50% of daily calorie expenditure (between 1800 - 2000 calories) can have beneficial effects, provided the person practicing strives for truly optimal nutrition.

    CRON:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRON-diet

    It is far from true that severe calorie restriction is "necessarily" like anorexia. Anorexics do not care about the nutritional composition of what they eat, if you practice CRON you have to.

    Also I assume your referring to catabolism and not to a "catatonic" state, because that is something else.

    lol, ok, I'll be a little more specific. I'm saying that in general, people shouldn't go LESS than 50% of what the body needs. You can do a 50% - or more - calorie reduction diet and still maintain adequate nutrition. It's POSSIBLE... but that doesn't mean it will happen. If a 50% or even a 40% or 30% CR diet means you're only eating 800 calories per day, it's pretty hard to get that "optimal nutrition" without at least a bunch of supplements.

    So it's true, if you're on a specific CRON diet that makes sure you're pumping your body full of nutrition, you are probably not anorexic and may not qualify as being on a "starvation" diet. But that's a pretty small demographic and not really what I was referring to in my post.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories