Starvation Mode
Replies
-
PatriceDAngelo wrote: »Hello, all! There is a LOT of information in this thread, and I have been trying to read through it all - but I'm at work, and I would LOVE to have a quick and dirty answer to this: if my MFP calorie goal is 1,200, and I exercise and burn, say, 300 calories, should I also eat those 300 calories on top of my 1,200? My first instinct was yes, and I'm not losing weight, so I think maybe I was wrong. Should I still stay with 1,200, and is that enough fuel for me to exercise regularly? (I'm not exactly a tri-athlete, LOL, and still a gym-newbie!) Thanks so much to anyone who has a quick answer to this!
Depends on how accurate you measure your food and exercise calories. How long have you not been losing at a net of 1200? (A general forum rule of thumb is to only eat back half your exercise calories.)
0 -
PatriceDAngelo wrote: »Hello, all! There is a LOT of information in this thread, and I have been trying to read through it all - but I'm at work, and I would LOVE to have a quick and dirty answer to this: if my MFP calorie goal is 1,200, and I exercise and burn, say, 300 calories, should I also eat those 300 calories on top of my 1,200? My first instinct was yes, and I'm not losing weight, so I think maybe I was wrong. Should I still stay with 1,200, and is that enough fuel for me to exercise regularly? (I'm not exactly a tri-athlete, LOL, and still a gym-newbie!) Thanks so much to anyone who has a quick answer to this!
Yes, you should ... but doing so requires accurate logging of your intake and calculation of your burn. A common error is underestimating intake and overestimating burn .. a combination that makes erasing a deficit simple.0 -
Thank you! I have been allowing MFP to calculate my exercise calories, not using the machine settings at the gym. Perhaps that could be "off" a bit. I'm PRETTY good with calculating food calories, I think - when something clocks in from MFP and it doesn't seem right to me, I'll look it up elsewhere and correct it if need be. I also tend to overestimate, to be safe. But I HAVE been "eating back" my exercise calories, every day, so I was wondering if I was going wrong there. I do have a "cheat day", but only one day, so I'm going to pull that back a bit as well. Time will tell! Lost 35 pounds successfully and trying to ditch another 30.
0 -
PatriceDAngelo wrote: »Thank you! I have been allowing MFP to calculate my exercise calories, not using the machine settings at the gym. Perhaps that could be "off" a bit. I'm PRETTY good with calculating food calories, I think - when something clocks in from MFP and it doesn't seem right to me, I'll look it up elsewhere and correct it if need be. I also tend to overestimate, to be safe. But I HAVE been "eating back" my exercise calories, every day, so I was wondering if I was going wrong there. I do have a "cheat day", but only one day, so I'm going to pull that back a bit as well. Time will tell! Lost 35 pounds successfully and trying to ditch another 30.
Actually, MFP is notoriously worse than some exercise machines when it comes to estimating burns. You can still use the log to figure out calorie burn - just count it for 1/2 of what MFP tells you. (At least, that's the standard advice.)0 -
MFP tends to over-estimate calories burned by exercise. When I log (which hasn't been often lately!), I wait until I have finished for the day to enter calories burned. And I underestimate them. I'll say "60 minutes walking at 3 mph" when I know I've walked further in 75 minutes. A lot of people change their exercise to 1 calorie to keep it from counting against their calories eaten. Whatever works for you!0
-
Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
This article!!! #crushedit
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »"Starvation mode" as you described is a myth and disproved by science.
+1
There is NO SUCH THING as starvation mode as described by OP.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »"Starvation mode" as you described is a myth and disproved by science.
^This0 -
I will be succinct. I do Intermitant fasting (Google it very good articles) (I even train fasted) and go 16 hrs without eating and with slight caloric defici and exercise - I lost (fat)and put in appox 10 lbs of muscle. The starvation mode from my own anecdotal evidence seems to be highly exaggerated but everyone is different. I know people who eat 6 times a day and do fine.0
-
RBracken34 wrote: »Nope... and I'll even argue that the "as long as you get enough protein" argument is fairly controversial... or at least the definition of what's "enough" certainly is. The US has the highest recommended daily allowance of protein of all developed countries and people in lots of other developed countries aren't lacking for muscle. We don't need nearly as much protein in our diets as some people would have us believe. *ducks*
Bottom line: Weigh and measure and eat at a deficit. You'll lose fat. Simple as that.
When I started out at MFP I was supposed to eat a minimum of 87 grs of protein. Many people here thought it was not enough.
Last summer I had a complete check-up in one of the best hospitals in Barcelona/Spain and they asked me if I lived in the US when they saw my protein " requirement ". I was put on 40 grs ( I am just under five feet tall ) and informed that the average size/height/weight woman should eat around 45 grs a day with only high performance athletes eating more.
I still aim for 40 grs ( sometimes go a bit over ) and have so far lost 65 pounds and have no hunger pangs or cravings. I have since then investigated the protein issue and can only agree with you, no one has requirements as high as the US.
Maybe protein is such a big deal in the US, because it is readily available and cheap.......
0 -
It is a thing. Not to the extent of what people say. But i've experienced it myself. Your metabolism CAN lower as a result of long term restriction but there is a limit to that. If you eat under that you can still lose weight. But your body will lower your metabolism because it begins to shut of energy consuming processes to try to keep you alive. (For example, anorexics at extremely low weights can maintain long term on as low as 700-1200 calories because in addition to burning less because they weigh less, their bodies are in conservation mode to try to burn the least amount of calories as possible. It is a physiological response to starvation. The body shuts off processes such as menstruation, hormone production, and other energy consuming processes) The body is remarkable at adapting in order to try and survive.
But this is different than the "oh I dieted and my metabolism is crap and I can't lose" when someone's at a healthy weight and haven't undergone long term starvation.0 -
0
-
LiftAndBalance wrote: »SavannahStClair wrote: »Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Thank you for this, it was both interesting and entertaining.The problem is usually twofold:
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
I agree about not eating back exercise calories. It can be difficult, however, especially after working up a sweat, you feel like you deserve a little something extra! (Right!?) However, I may have to go "premium" so I can avoid having the exercise calories added to my total, OR only log my exercise at the end of the day, so as to not fool myself into thinking I have more calories left than I actually do.
If you log accurately and follow MFP's method of setting your calorie goal, you should be eating back at least part of your exercise calories, though. Not because too big of a deficit will put you in 'starvation mode' but due to the issues associated with too big of a deficit such as those that were already pointed out in this thread.
This.
For example, I weigh 125 and am only 5'3, so if I use MFP method and seek even a small loss/week, I get 1200 (assuming I am on sedentary, as so many people are). Thus, if I did not eat back exercise calories I'd be doing 1200 even when exercising really vigorously, like running 90 minutes or riding my bike 2 hours. Contrary to what MKEgal claims, I think that would be a bad idea for my health and for my ability to maintain muscle mass and look my best when finished, so I strongly believe that advising others not to eat back exercise without knowing more details is extremely irresponsible.
I just restarted a deficit after maintaining for a while, and so far I seem to be losing about 1 lb/week (probably more than ideal) at 1700-1800 calories, which suggests to me that 1200 would be a bad idea.
What I do instead of adding back exercise calories (although I did that for quite a while and it worked great) is to include my overall activity level in my calories before taking a deficit. I recommend this to someone who doesn't wish to eat back exercise.
(You can also log exercise as 1 calorie if you do this.)0 -
My body thinks. It uses its brain to do this.brianpperkins wrote: »
No.My understanding is that your body slows down its metabolism if it thinks there is not enough food to nourish it.
First, the body does not think. Second, the only way metabolism slows or speeds is through long term changes ... i.e. loss or gain of muscle mass. The resulting metabolic adaptation is not that the body tries to hold onto fat but that the difference in muscle mass results in a change in the amount of calories the body burns both at rest and through activity.
0 -
RBracken34 wrote: »Nope... and I'll even argue that the "as long as you get enough protein" argument is fairly controversial... or at least the definition of what's "enough" certainly is. The US has the highest recommended daily allowance of protein of all developed countries and people in lots of other developed countries aren't lacking for muscle. We don't need nearly as much protein in our diets as some people would have us believe. *ducks*
Bottom line: Weigh and measure and eat at a deficit. You'll lose fat. Simple as that.
When I started out at MFP I was supposed to eat a minimum of 87 grs of protein. Many people here thought it was not enough.
Last summer I had a complete check-up in one of the best hospitals in Barcelona/Spain and they asked me if I lived in the US when they saw my protein " requirement ". I was put on 40 grs ( I am just under five feet tall ) and informed that the average size/height/weight woman should eat around 45 grs a day with only high performance athletes eating more.
I still aim for 40 grs ( sometimes go a bit over ) and have so far lost 65 pounds and have no hunger pangs or cravings. I have since then investigated the protein issue and can only agree with you, no one has requirements as high as the US.
Maybe protein is such a big deal in the US, because it is readily available and cheap......
^^^ as a Dutchie, this is also my experience. The official recommendation is 0,8 grams of protein for every kilogram of bodyweight (so for me that's a little over 43 gram, and I top that almost every day. The recommendation for carbs is 40 to 70 percent of total food intake, by the way, and fat 20 to 40 percent (20 to 35 if you're obese).0 -
I've been doing 1,200 since Feb. I was losing two lbs a week easily for the first three months. I have lost 42 lbs. as I get closer to my goal, I realize that I'm not eating enough (I am often below 1200 for the day) and I want to do this right for my body. (I rarely ate back exercise calories in my mission to meet my goal.) I want to try the tdee method but I am concerned about how long it will take for my body to adjust. Anyone else switch over to the tdee method?0
-
I did, but I was eating exercise calories already so it wasn't a big change.
The usual advise is to go up gradually, like maybe 100 calories per week until you get to the new goal.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I did, but I was eating exercise calories already so it wasn't a big change.
Thanks! Sounds like a plan!0 -
SavannahStClair wrote: »Hello everyone! I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight and periodically I see someone say "starvation mode," the idea that your body is desperately trying to hold on to weight due to its impression that you are starving. Is this a real thing? What does everyone think about this idea? Is it scientifically proven? I'm losing weight to my satisfy thus far, and am simply curious about this. Thank you in advance for any responses.
honestly I don't think its a thing. I eat between 600 and 1000 calories a day before exercise and I have not hit this "starvation mode" syndrome.
0 -
newfutures wrote: »SavannahStClair wrote: »Hello everyone! I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight and periodically I see someone say "starvation mode," the idea that your body is desperately trying to hold on to weight due to its impression that you are starving. Is this a real thing? What does everyone think about this idea? Is it scientifically proven? I'm losing weight to my satisfy thus far, and am simply curious about this. Thank you in advance for any responses.
honestly I don't think its a thing. I eat between 600 and 1000 calories a day before exercise and I have not hit this "starvation mode" syndrome.
Why are you eating so little?0 -
newfutures wrote: »SavannahStClair wrote: »Hello everyone! I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight and periodically I see someone say "starvation mode," the idea that your body is desperately trying to hold on to weight due to its impression that you are starving. Is this a real thing? What does everyone think about this idea? Is it scientifically proven? I'm losing weight to my satisfy thus far, and am simply curious about this. Thank you in advance for any responses.
honestly I don't think its a thing. I eat between 600 and 1000 calories a day before exercise and I have not hit this "starvation mode" syndrome.
Yeah for how long? over two years? Thats how long it took me.0 -
For the same _volume_ (let's say 10 cubic inches), muscle does weigh more than fat, because it's more dense.Dcorriette66 wrote:I always wondered about the "muscle weighing more than fat" and "starvation mode" types of thinking.
That's why fat people float & muscular people sink.
I had a couple bodybuilders in my lifeguard class, had to haul them around the pool.
For the same _weight_ (let's say 1 lb) muscle takes up less space than fat, again because it's more dense.
That's why 2 people can weigh the same but have very different measurements; they have different
body composition, one being more fat, the other having more muscle.
0 -
MKEgal wrote:Your body MUST have energy (calories) to run. If it runs out, you die.
It prefers glucose (blood sugar),
then it prefers glycogen (stored carbs, mostly in muscle & liver),
then it prefers fat,
and as a distant 4th choice it burns muscle.
To be a little more clear, the body burns glucose.strong_curves wrote:Very informative.
If it's low on that, it will pull out glycogen and convert it to glucose, then burn the glucose.
Etc.0 -
newfutures wrote: »SavannahStClair wrote: »Hello everyone! I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight and periodically I see someone say "starvation mode," the idea that your body is desperately trying to hold on to weight due to its impression that you are starving. Is this a real thing? What does everyone think about this idea? Is it scientifically proven? I'm losing weight to my satisfy thus far, and am simply curious about this. Thank you in advance for any responses.
honestly I don't think its a thing. I eat between 600 and 1000 calories a day before exercise and I have not hit this "starvation mode" syndrome.
Either you are inaccurately calculating your intake or you are eating a dangerously low amount.0 -
Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Yep. Excellent resource.0 -
SavannahStClair wrote: »Read this. Now. Several times.
http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
Thank you for this, it was both interesting and entertaining.The problem is usually twofold:
1 - they're not logging their food accurately (weigh, measure)
2 - their burn isn't as high as they think
Both of which contribute to
3 - don't eat back exercise calories
I agree about not eating back exercise calories. It can be difficult, however, especially after working up a sweat, you feel like you deserve a little something extra! (Right!?) However, I may have to go "premium" so I can avoid having the exercise calories added to my total, OR only log my exercise at the end of the day, so as to not fool myself into thinking I have more calories left than I actually do.
MKEgal, you wrong about not eating back exercise calories. Besides, you've made a blanket statement. It all depends on whether you are already accurate in your calorie intake/output (exercise) and the type of exercise you are doing.
For example, if you going for a five mile run every other day, or you are doing some other kind of cardio, you need to eat a portion of those exercise calories back in order to properly fuel your body.0 -
SavannahStClair wrote: »Hello everyone! I have been reading threads about weight loss and people ask why at X-number of calories (usually quite low) they're not losing weight and periodically I see someone say "starvation mode," the idea that your body is desperately trying to hold on to weight due to its impression that you are starving. Is this a real thing? What does everyone think about this idea? Is it scientifically proven? I'm losing weight to my satisfy thus far, and am simply curious about this. Thank you in advance for any responses.
You've been reading threads when starvation mode is mentioned and didn't bother to read all the responses where it is constantly and consistently debunked?
Really?0 -
PatriceDAngelo wrote: »Hello, all! There is a LOT of information in this thread, and I have been trying to read through it all - but I'm at work, and I would LOVE to have a quick and dirty answer to this: if my MFP calorie goal is 1,200, and I exercise and burn, say, 300 calories, should I also eat those 300 calories on top of my 1,200? My first instinct was yes, and I'm not losing weight, so I think maybe I was wrong. Should I still stay with 1,200, and is that enough fuel for me to exercise regularly? (I'm not exactly a tri-athlete, LOL, and still a gym-newbie!) Thanks so much to anyone who has a quick answer to this!
Yes you should eat them back
You should net 1200
But if you're using MFP or machine burns you should cut them in half before you enter them (on MFP exercise calorie just click on the calories and adjust them down)0 -
Thank you to everyone who has responded for your non-judgemental advice. My degrees are in the social sciences, linguistics and business, so diet and exercise are not my forté. I appreciate especially the articles which were very informative. Thank you to you, the community for your vibrant and caring responses.0
-
I have been trying to lose weight for over two years, I had cut back on my portions and eliminated one of my meals and what do you think happened? I gained weight. I was told I built more muscle, I am starving myself so my body will not let the fat go, or something like that, LOL. Well I went to my doctor and he told me about this program, he was using it. I have been using it for two weeks now, first week lost 3.4lbs, weigh in for week two is tomorrow. What I found using this program was, I still had to many calories coming in and where I thought my carbs were to high I found my fat and protein level were much to high. Bottom line, burning more calories than what you take in will lose weight, it's that simple. Seeing portion size/Cal really opened my eyes. Also, look at the calorie count before eating something allows me to adjust what I am willing to digest.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions