MFP calculations (and all calorie calculations for that matter) are based on averages - not everyone is average, some people are on the ends of the bell curve.

How are you feeling? Do you have plenty of energy? Are you getting the afternoon sleepy feeling? Are you able to complete your normal level of activity? Trouble sleeping at night? Irregular heartbeats? Hair falling out? Nails brittle and cracking? Any symptoms of poor health?

If you are not experiencing any fatigue or other symptoms of nutritional deficiency, then you aren't starving your body. You might just be on the end of the curve where your calorie needs are lower than average. Just my opinion, of course.

I had to go by what worked and works for me. All folks are different. I aim for 1800 calories. Such a huge deficit according to some, but I don't get hungry. The weight has come off pretty regular. No use in making myself eat more.

You don't always reduce metabolism when you reduce calories - you can offset that with increased activity or building muscle, and there are probably other ways to impact that as well.

For example, at the beginning of the year I was eating at maintenance as defined by MFP - and maintaining weight, no problem.

April - October, I set my MFP goals to calorie reduction (2lbs per week) and actually lost at a pretty steady rate of 1/2 pound per week (12 lbs lost in 6 mos). During this time I also increased cardio and was more consistent with my weightlifting schedule...probably adding an extra 2-3 hours per week over previous activity levels, eating back 50% exercise calories (same ratio as during maintenance).

November, I returned to eating at maintenance per MFP calculations - I'm continuing to lose at a rate of slightly under 1/2 lb per week. I'm still losing even eating at a level that I know was a maintenance level 7 months ago.

This indicates to me that metabolism has increased over the course of my 6 month calorie reduction - reduced calories does not always result in reduced metabolism, there are more variables at play than just consumption.

I don't know if I've read Dr. Fung, but I'll have to look him up, I see him referenced a lot!

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

kpk54 wrote: »

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

Starvation mode is *kitten*. I regularly cut on more than a 1000 kcal deficit, and I'm only 162 lbs. My current caloric total is about 1225-1250, and I lift four times per week and put in 12k+ steps per day. I tend to shed 10-15 lbs. in two weeks, with about 75% of that being water weight that comes back when I replenish glycogen stores.

On my last three week cut, I went from 177 to 162, then back to 167 after refeeding. So yeah, if anyone was going to catch a case of starvation AIDS, it would be me, and it doesn't happen.

Well perhaps it doesn't happen because your extreme deficit is followed by an extreme surplus? Never a prolonged, excessive calorie deficit of a year or more to lose 100+ pounds?

And while I understand @tcunbeliever's points regarding "are you experiencing", I'd like to add the word YET to that. The human body is pretty amazing but then even though you have this "on board pantry" from which to eat you only do well for so long if you choose to severely restrict the "fuel" your body.

Interesting to me, though I don't perceive my weight loss methods to have ever been excessive/extreme nor did I worry about "bottoming" my metabolism, I never gave metabolism reduction much thought UNTIL reading authors like Dr. Jason Fung who indicate a major fault in CICO (calories in calories out) for weight loss is when you reduce calories, you reduce metabolism. To Fung (and others) it is fact. It is science. He states it over and over in his books, videos and articles: Reduced calories results reduced metabolism. That's what the body does to maintain homeostasis.

@MKknits, you pose an excellent question.

That's why there are different protocols for the morbidly obese. The leaner one gets, the more likely it is that reduced calories can screw you. The BodyRecomposition forums are loaded with formerly obese people who ran a PSMF (with programmed in two week diet breaks) and they'd stay on it for months, changing the protocol as they lost bodyfat. I think the most impressive that I saw was a 400+ lbs. dude at 40% bf who cut down to 215 or so within five months.

My experience and that of others points to there being less metabolic issues, and more people just losing their *kitten* and going back to eating in a way that made them fat to begin with, because the diet can be miserable for those who aren't used to it. However, most here would probably do fine with it, as it's basically very low carb, but with the fat cut out as well. None of us would suffer the keto flu that wrecks a lot of people who try it.

^ Agreed.

And adaptive thermogensis isn't a "fault" with CICO. People do experience a variation in response to changes in calorie intake mostly through how it effects non exercise activity thermogenesis. However, you don't see situations where NEAT reduces more than the reduction in calories.

Additionally, changes in energy expenditure as a result of dieting are accounted for which is why CICO is still correct, it is just not a simple, straightforward thing as many make it out to be.

Fung is a bit of an anti calorie zealot IMO.

You will not go into "starvation mode" if that's even a thing on 1600 - 1800 calories. I wouldn't worry about it. There are obvious problems with eating way too little (under 1000 calories) such as not enough protein etc but 1600 is still quite a lot of calories for most people.

@MKknits - remember too, that hungry naturally waxes and wanes. Calorie deficits (if not program specific as @Gallowmere1984 mentioned) should be viewed on an average basis of over 7-14 days. The body is a variable mechanism. Especially factoring in hormonal shifts and such. The caloric intake requirement cannot possibly be identical day in and day out, just because we can't force stress, sleep, etc. to be identical every single day.

Know that for now, hunger is absent, and that it may return in doses or all at once. Just keep on following those natural signals and take the breaks as you can get them!

grafixfrh wrote: »

At 280 lbs and between 1200-1600 calories I consistently lost weight, gained muscle mass and maintained healthy water mass with no issues minus a few days of Keto flu symptoms which I handled with water, salt, magnesium and potassium and after a few days all was right as rain. This I done with moderate treadmill and exercise bike H I I T training and walking 10k steps per day along with band training as I have RSD and cannot lift weights. All that exercise with only that many calories at least for me with the results I have shows that lower calorie intake is not the problem as one mentioned as long as ample protein is taken in starvation mode will not be a factor.

If you're legit rolling with HIIT at 280 lbs., I salute you. I can't stand that *kitten*, and I'm around 13-14% BF at 171. I have a serious problem with doing things that make me feel like death is a better option.

As @KnitOrMiss said, I would let your calories vary. Go with hunger if it seems reasonable and there is nothing else affecting your perception of hunger.

When I was losing, my daily average was about 1500kcal per day. Some days were 2500kcal and others were 800kcal, with most being between 1200 and 1800kcal. I went with hunger and it balanced out.

I believe it probably is more natural for people to experience fluctuations in their caloric intake. Eating exactly 2200 kcal per day is probably not what our bodies were designed to experience.

RalfLott wrote: »

I dunno about starvation mode. According to keto researchers Steven Phinney & Jeff Volek, even elite endurance athletes have a portable, subcutaneous fat pantry of 100,000+ calories, so it's not as if the body is going to run out of fat fuel (though there may be some limit on how much is burned per some period of time).

Hunger and satiety are regulated by hormones and are subject to imbalances and defects (e.g., leptin resistance). So I'd sooner go by "don't eat if you're not hungry" than "eat whenever you are."

98% agree here. There will be some "hungry days" which may be the result of your body needing certain micronutrients - just think pregnancy cravings. These are often triggered by the mother's body needing something.

That said, we all need to be careful about understanding hungry in contrast to habit eating.