Defecits / Starvation Mode / Metabolism

Fattack
Fattack Posts: 666 Member
edited September 28 in Food and Nutrition
Does anybody have any actual figures as to how long somebody can technically go under their NET (and by how much) without declining their metabolism / hitting starvation mode. I was considering going under NET (not 1200 intake, but not eating exercise calories back) for a couple of days to speed things up (as I'm short and increasingly lighter - yay!, I lose less than 1lb a week on 1200).

Replies

  • cindy859
    cindy859 Posts: 99 Member
    Hi well i hate to admit it but I constantly go under my 1250 calories. I have not yet hit starvation mode--I've been on mfp for a little over 3 months and have lost 42 lbs. I know that you are supposed to eat your exercise calories back but sometimes I just can not do it. I am not encouraging anyone to follow suit nor am I saying that your body won't go into starvation mode doing the same thing, I'm just answering your question and telling you that it has not affected me--my weight loss varies from 1.5 to 3 pounds a week. So I would say give it a shot, but do some research on line about starvation mode so you are well informed. Good luck!
  • Fattack
    Fattack Posts: 666 Member
    Thanks for your response :) I know a lot of people have success going under their net (which is inevitable as it's math!) and well done you! I've done a lot of research about going under NET and don't generally agree with it due to the loss of lean muscle mass so I mostly do eat my exercise calories, but after a bit of a bad week I was wondering if a few days under would adversely affect my metabolism in the long run or if my body will retain memory of being over at the weekend and fend it off for a few days. I tend to burn about 600-800 most days and am debating not eating these back for the next two or three days. I'm just looking to see if anybody has any actual numbers! I have about 30lbs to goal and am just over 27 BMI.
  • MoonShadow_1au
    MoonShadow_1au Posts: 149 Member
    Looking into it. I go through ups and downs in my %Body Fat that I believe relates to two days of 200 cals under net. Last weekend I have an unexpected workout (cycling with the family) and I could not eat the extra 800 caories, and a couple of days before the same thing (with planned workout). Body Fat went up 1.5%

    Unfortunately I need to restart monitoring as I replaced the batteries in my scales and all my figures are higher now.

    Friend me to monitor this through my news feed.
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    Does anybody have any actual figures as to how long somebody can technically go under their NET (and by how much) without declining their metabolism / hitting starvation mode. I was considering going under NET (not 1200 intake, but not eating exercise calories back) for a couple of days to speed things up (as I'm short and increasingly lighter - yay!, I lose less than 1lb a week on 1200).

    This depends.... First and most importantly is exercise. If you exercise with resistance training your metabolism won't slow down and you won't lose muscle mass.

    the evidence is in this study.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826

    As for the time your metabolism does slow down without exercising, it's 72hrs. If you want to zigzagg your calories do... day 1 low, day 2 low, day 3 high.

    I think a big part of WHY people go in to starvation mode is because of their macro nutrient ratio. If youe at a high carb diet on low calories... what happens is your immune system needs amino acids which comes from protein, if you're not consuming enough it will strip it from the muscle.

    If you eat a high protein diet, you will have enough protein to support the immune system. Protein also turns in to carbs when there are no carbs available. So you get carbs for your brain function too.
  • johnnythebaptist
    johnnythebaptist Posts: 103
    This is one of the best I have read

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works
  • AshinAms
    AshinAms Posts: 283 Member
    I am totally with you on the macro nutrients! I lost very successfully before on a macronutrient controlled diet with a training program that was burning about 2000 calories a day (mostly resistance). During that time, even if I ate more than my calorie allowance, as long as it was in the correct macronutrient ratio I kept losing fat.
  • firedwings
    firedwings Posts: 11
    I don't really focus on the NET. The best way is to listen to your body. It will tell you what it needs, if your going too far, if your feeling hungry when you should eat and if your over working when its in pain.
  • caroline_g
    caroline_g Posts: 201 Member
    I read in an article the other day that it'll take the average person 72 hours before they hit starvation mode
  • Limeinthecoconut
    Limeinthecoconut Posts: 234 Member
    it also depends on how close you are to goal. When you are just beginning/have a lot of weight to lose, your body seems to cope better with larger deficits. When you get into a healthy weight range and are quite close to goal, large deficits seem to hinder weight loss more than help.
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    This is one of the best I have read

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/230930-starvation-mode-how-it-works

    She is highly inaccurate, it's about macro nutrient ratios... She just says it's about calories.
  • Fattack
    Fattack Posts: 666 Member
    Thank you for all your responses - I didn't know that about the resistance training and the protein converting to carbs when none are available, so that's especially wonderful info! I do about 3-5 days resistance training weekly. I'll really try to up my protein and zigzag :)
  • xraychick77
    xraychick77 Posts: 1,775 Member
    no..because its all myth..with no scientific basis behind them
  • Fattack
    Fattack Posts: 666 Member
    http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/topicoftheweek88.htm

    found this, for anybody else interested in cutting fat without losing muscle.
  • suzitkd
    suzitkd Posts: 110
    I am totally with you on the macro nutrients! I lost very successfully before on a macronutrient controlled diet with a training program that was burning about 2000 calories a day (mostly resistance). During that time, even if I ate more than my calorie allowance, as long as it was in the correct macronutrient ratio I kept losing fat.
    This sounds interesting - I've done the green plan of slimming world before and often wondered how it worked - you're allowed to eat as much pasta and potatoes as you like but must keep protein limited, or the 'red plan' vice versa as much protein as you like but limit the carbs - never really got how you could eat as much as you wanted of something and yet still lose weight - which is why I'm now counting carbs with MFP!
  • registers
    registers Posts: 782 Member
    I am totally with you on the macro nutrients! I lost very successfully before on a macronutrient controlled diet with a training program that was burning about 2000 calories a day (mostly resistance). During that time, even if I ate more than my calorie allowance, as long as it was in the correct macronutrient ratio I kept losing fat.
    This sounds interesting - I've done the green plan of slimming world before and often wondered how it worked - you're allowed to eat as much pasta and potatoes as you like but must keep protein limited, or the 'red plan' vice versa as much protein as you like but limit the carbs - never really got how you could eat as much as you wanted of something and yet still lose weight - which is why I'm now counting carbs with MFP!

    I can't see the "green plan" ever working, it defies the way our bodies work. If it does work, that means there is a big gap in our knowledge of the human body.
  • suzitkd
    suzitkd Posts: 110
    I am totally with you on the macro nutrients! I lost very successfully before on a macronutrient controlled diet with a training program that was burning about 2000 calories a day (mostly resistance). During that time, even if I ate more than my calorie allowance, as long as it was in the correct macronutrient ratio I kept losing fat.
    This sounds interesting - I've done the green plan of slimming world before and often wondered how it worked - you're allowed to eat as much pasta and potatoes as you like but must keep protein limited, or the 'red plan' vice versa as much protein as you like but limit the carbs - never really got how you could eat as much as you wanted of something and yet still lose weight - which is why I'm now counting carbs with MFP!

    I can't see the "green plan" ever working, it defies the way our bodies work. If it does work, that means there is a big gap in our knowledge of the human body.
    Well it certainly does - there are literally thousands of people out there who are living proof! Both me and my husband lost weight on it but fell off the wagon. But we are both analytical people and never like not truly knowing the 'science' behind it - that and you always had to refer back to their books to look up the 'syn' value of everything you ate - you couldn't just look at the packet and go by the calories! But it certainly works for a great deal of people!
  • mapexdrummer69
    mapexdrummer69 Posts: 445
    The "green" and "red" diets would work simply by creating a calorie deficit, just like any other diet. Low carb, isocaloric, Zone, South Beach, etc. Not saying they don't work in terms of weight loss, just saying there isn't anything "magic" involved persay. Diet choice all comes down to personal preference.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories