Starvation mode with too much exercise?

For the sake of clarity: what kind of numbers are we talking about?

You're on thin ice asking that question on here ...

Well, I take it back. If you eat at a deficit for long enough, your metabolism will shut down. However, your being dead will prevent you from noticing or caring.

It's not Friday yet.

fearlessleader104 wrote: »

It's not Friday yet.

Depends on where you are.

xXBabyBelleXx wrote: »

You're on thin ice asking that question on here ...

Thanks for stopping by to help OP!

And, so I'm not hypocritical...basically echoing what everyone else said. Your metabolism will tend to slow down as you age, and as you lose weight (insofar as you simply need less calories to move your body around). But it never stops until you die.

That said, if you're netting a very low calorie amount after exercise, I will go out on a limb and predict you'll be exhausted and sick of your plan after about a week or two. Much better to stick with a reasonable calorie deficit so you can sustain it.

This content has been removed.

MrM27 wrote: »

If your metabolism shuts down you die

xXBabyBelleXx wrote: »

You're on thin ice asking that question on here ...

If you've got some kind of information to say what most here believe is wrong why don't you provide it then?

Oh come off it, we have all seen how the well anything using the term 'starvation mode' goes down here!!

AshLittle1 wrote: »

"Slight reductions in calorie counts result in slow steady weight loss. Exercise that increases calorie needs results in greater weight loss and better health. Drastically reduced calories send signals to your body that there is not enough food available. Radical diets might result in initial weight loss, but the body soon adapts to the sharp reduction in fuel by shutting down and putting itself in protection mode. Metabolism and energy levels drop and calorie needs drop further. The body further responds by slowing down metabolism and storing any extra calories as fat."

http://www.livestrong.com/article/244490-do-low-calorie-diets-slow-down-metabolism/

Barlowe [the author] holds a Bachelor of Arts in English and French and a Master of Fine Arts in film animation.

Still doesn't explain why she's posing as an expert on the internet, but makes the confusion in her information more understandable. I take most anything at Livestrong with a grain of salt, at least.

Now:

"Slight reductions in calorie counts result in slow steady weight loss. Exercise that increases calorie needs results in greater weight loss and better health."

is true, I believe, and eating more to fuel your exercise is probably a good idea. Sabine's question about the numbers is an important one.

"Drastically reduced calories send signals to your body that there is not enough food available. Radical diets might result in initial weight loss, but the body soon adapts to the sharp reduction in fuel by shutting down and putting itself in protection mode. Metabolism and energy levels drop and calorie needs drop further. The body further responds by slowing down metabolism and storing any extra calories as fat."

This isn't true or is overstated.

Being on low calories for a long time will result in metabolic adaptation where you burn fewer calories. For some this happens more extremely than others--there seems to be some variation in how much of an adaptation you get which is why some people have a harder time gaining weight than others (as it also works in the reverse). To a certain extent it appears that you can minimize the effect by having a less aggressive deficit and by making part of the deficit with exercise (there's a study that compares VLCD, a 25% deficit from food only, and a 25% deficit made up half by exercise where the adaptation is worst for the VLCD and least bad for the exercisers). There are various other reasons to avoid an extreme deficit, including one made up in large part with exercise.

But what does not happen is your body "shutting down" and storing extra fat. If you were doing this, how are you fueling the activity you are doing.

However, that your body may want to conserve energy can mean that you are doing stuff you don't notice like being more sedentary before and after the workout. These are good reasons not to have too extreme a deficit.

AshLittle1 wrote: »

If you let your calories drop beyond a certain point for a certain amount of time, your metabolism shuts down. I was wondering, if I keep my calories at a healthy level but do a lot of cardio and weight training, burning enough calories to put me at a low net calorie count for the day, will my body enter its starvation mode and slow my metabolism?

This content has been removed.

In that article the op posted, it says that it slows the metabolism and stores any EXTRA calories as fat. Even if you take the article exactly as stated, you still wouldn't be storing fat if you are at a deficit, right? Because your body wouldn't have any extra calories? I don't get the whole starvation mode thing. That poor 40 lb anorexic woman on the news lately pretty much shows that it doesn't happen. Not to mention all the skeletal children in starving areas and the whole Holocaust thing. Where did that idea come from?

This content has been removed.