Caloric Intake, Hunger, "Starvation Mode" and Keto
PhearlessPhreaks
Posts: 890 Member
We've been taught that the body goes into “starvation mode” if we don’t consume enough calories. But is that really true? What if we’re really overweight and have a lot of extra stored calories in the form of fat? And what if our body has become used to using that kind of fuel? Should we really eat when we aren't hungry for the sake of hitting some arbitrary number?
I've been a member of MFP (on and off) for several years; and LCHF has, thus far, been the only thing that has worked. I have had no desire to binge, cravings for junk and sweets are non-existent, and the freedom is amazing- I'm no longer a slave to my appetite. But I find that many days, especially days where I'm active (I've started using a fitbit, which is synced to my MFP app) and get in multiple "workouts"- both dedicated, actual workouts, and what the fitbit thinks is a workout, like deep cleaning or hefty yardwork- I'm coming in hundreds, if not sometimes close to 2k calories below goal, and I'm set at a 2lb a week loss. I have myself set at lightly active, and i notice the apps take activity level into account, but still...
For example, yesterday, between late breakfast and dinner, my calories were close to 800kcal for the day. I was tired of a serving of almonds or a piece of cheese, so I made myself a "dessert" with cocoa powder and peanut butter, unsweetened coconut flakes and walnuts, which hit the spot and put me into a more "acceptable" range. But should I have cared? At a present weight of 259, 5'5", I have plenty of fat stores... is "starvation mode" really something I should worry about, if I'm fat adapted, eating enough protein and getting key nutrients, vitamins and minerals? If I'm not hungry, I shouldn't eat, right?
Thoughtful replies are most welcome!
I've been a member of MFP (on and off) for several years; and LCHF has, thus far, been the only thing that has worked. I have had no desire to binge, cravings for junk and sweets are non-existent, and the freedom is amazing- I'm no longer a slave to my appetite. But I find that many days, especially days where I'm active (I've started using a fitbit, which is synced to my MFP app) and get in multiple "workouts"- both dedicated, actual workouts, and what the fitbit thinks is a workout, like deep cleaning or hefty yardwork- I'm coming in hundreds, if not sometimes close to 2k calories below goal, and I'm set at a 2lb a week loss. I have myself set at lightly active, and i notice the apps take activity level into account, but still...
For example, yesterday, between late breakfast and dinner, my calories were close to 800kcal for the day. I was tired of a serving of almonds or a piece of cheese, so I made myself a "dessert" with cocoa powder and peanut butter, unsweetened coconut flakes and walnuts, which hit the spot and put me into a more "acceptable" range. But should I have cared? At a present weight of 259, 5'5", I have plenty of fat stores... is "starvation mode" really something I should worry about, if I'm fat adapted, eating enough protein and getting key nutrients, vitamins and minerals? If I'm not hungry, I shouldn't eat, right?
Thoughtful replies are most welcome!
8
Replies
-
Starvation Mode is a myth, your body will not hold onto fat or refuse to lose weight if you eat too little. The fact that people who are ill or anorexic for example will become skin and bones is an example of that.
Long term under-eating can lower your BMR/TDEE over time, but don't make it impossible to lose weight (adaptive thermogenesis).
However there are plenty of other drawbacks to under-eating. Calories are fuel, and your body needs a certain amount of fuel to beat your heart and move your diaphragm and repair your cells and grow your hair. If you don't give it enough calories of fuel, it will stop doing some of those things. It is also very hard to get the protein/nutrients your body needs in a very small amount of calories.
If you recently changed the way you eat, it can take a while for your digestive system and appetite to catch up. A few day of under-eating are fine; long term is dangerous. Also, adrenaline from the excitement of a new plan for success can mute appetite and fatigue in the short term. If you aren't using a food scale, you are probably eating more cals than you think - the foods you mentioned are calorie dense and eyeballing/measuring wrong could mean several hundred calories unlogged.
For most of us, broken hunger cues were part of what led us to get overweight. Allowing those broken hunger cues to allow us to under-eat is just as bad, IMHO.17 -
If you are constantly eating beliw the minimum net calories (1200 for woman and 1500 for men) it is highly unlikely hat you are getting enough vitamins and minerals. I would force myself to at least eat the minimum. "Starvation mode" isn't a thing though your metabolism will adapt after a period of prolonged undereating. Malnutrition is real though and it sneaks up on you. You feel great until you don't. It's not something I recommend at all.10
-
This is by far the best explanation of Starvation Mode I've read https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/25 -
What is LCHF ?1
-
LCHF is low carb/high fat0
-
I am 5'1". I can't eat over 980 calories a day if I want to lose.26
-
sunnyside1213 wrote: »What is LCHF ?
LOW CARB HIGH FAT0 -
sunnyside1213 wrote: »I am 5'1". I can't eat over 980 calories a day if I want to lose.
How have you come to this figure? To lose half a pound per week you'd need to be in a 250 calorie deficit - even a sedentary 60 year old at your height and just overweight would have a TDEE around 1400 and be able to lose on 1200.12 -
I don't think I'm in starvation mode. I'm actually questioning if it's even a thing, especially for those of us who have a buttload of extra stored energy for the body to burn.
My carbs come completely from vegetables, of which I'm a fan; and generally, I am above the 1200kcal for the day.... but I'm almost never anywhere close to the supposed "goal". I just don't see the point of eating to that number, if I'm not hungry. Am I wrong?
*My diary is open, if anyone is interested in taking a look. I have my macros set to 60/30/10 Fat/Protein/Carb. They were set to 70/20/10, but my metabolic MD suggested the present ratio.2 -
PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »I don't think I'm in starvation mode. I'm actually questioning if it's even a thing, especially for those of us who have a buttload of extra stored energy for the body to burn.
My carbs come completely from vegetables, of which I'm a fan; and generally, I am above the 1200kcal for the day.... but I'm almost never anywhere close to the supposed "goal". I just don't see the point of eating to that number, if I'm not hungry. Am I wrong?
*My diary is open, if anyone is interested in taking a look. I have my macros set to 60/30/10 Fat/Protein/Carb. They were set to 70/20/10, but my metabolic MD suggested the present ratio.
Measuring in cups and spoons is where you are likely going wrong, you're eating more than you think. Things like Peanut Butter measure as tbsp can be completely out, when you're eating a higher fat diet you've less wiggle room (Fat is 9 cals per gram as opposed to 4 cals per gram for Protein or Carbs) get yourself a food scale if you want to truly determine how much you're eating:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
15 -
PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »I don't think I'm in starvation mode. I'm actually questioning if it's even a thing, especially for those of us who have a buttload of extra stored energy for the body to burn.
My carbs come completely from vegetables, of which I'm a fan; and generally, I am above the 1200kcal for the day.... but I'm almost never anywhere close to the supposed "goal". I just don't see the point of eating to that number, if I'm not hungry. Am I wrong?
*My diary is open, if anyone is interested in taking a look. I have my macros set to 60/30/10 Fat/Protein/Carb. They were set to 70/20/10, but my metabolic MD suggested the present ratio.
How long have you been eating like this, and how much weight have you lost in that time?2 -
Yeah... we have scale, Ive just hesitated using it, because it seems like so much more work (cleanup) and I'm not experiencing a stall or anything. It is something I probably should be doing, though.
0 -
PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »Yeah... we have scale, Ive just hesitated using it, because it seems like so much more work (cleanup) and I'm not experiencing a stall or anything. It is something I probably should be doing, though.
i looked really quick what is a small avocado?
i had an avocado today it was "small" but it was 170 g which is 286 calories thats far away from 90cal im sure if you use a scale you will see your closer to the suggested amt to eat a day10 -
How long have you been eating like this, and how much weight have you lost in that time?
I've been doing this for almost a month, and I've lost 17lbs. Like I said, I've not "stalled" or anything that would make me think I'm in the supposed starvation mode... I was just curious on thoughts about a large caloric deficit, sometimes being under that magic 1200kcal, and not eating if not hungry.
I simply don't see the point in eating more, if I'm satisfied, you know? My energy levels are good, I'm sleeping well, sugar cravings and binges are gone, I have more energy to work out than I did prior to this way of eating... so it seems to be working.
1 -
PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »
How long have you been eating like this, and how much weight have you lost in that time?
I've been doing this for almost a month, and I've lost 17lbs. Like I said, I've not "stalled" or anything that would make me think I'm in the supposed starvation mode... I was just curious on thoughts about a large caloric deficit, sometimes being under that magic 1200kcal, and not eating if not hungry.
I simply don't see the point in eating more, if I'm satisfied, you know? My energy levels are good, I'm sleeping well, I have more energy to work out than I did prior to this way of eating... so it seems to be working.
As I said earlier, starvation mode is not a thing, and not what you need to be concerned about.
17 lbs in a month, depending on how much water weight you lost, could be concerning, but maybe not. You really shouldn't continue at that rate for very long. Most people who are under-eating do feel fine, until they slam into the proverbial brick wall and then they don't. And it takes months to get back to feeling right.
The fact that you're "satisfied" doesn't mean your body has gotten everything it needs, that's as much emotion as it is biology. The point of eating enough is to fuel your body, it does a lot every day, and it can only mobilize so much stored fat at a time. If you aren't concerned about that, it's your choice. I do believe you are eating a bit more than you think. If you are losing more than 1% of your body weight per week, you are risking serious muscle loss, and once you get to within 40 or so lbs of a healthy weight you should slow down a bit more.
Using a food scale for a couple of weeks will at least give you a good idea of your actual calorie balance, even if you don't continue to use it going forward.
We get plenty of posts from people who lost weight fast, eating an unnecessarily small amount of calories, and they are unhappy with how they look and how little food they get to eat now that they are at goal. All we can do is warn you and wish you the best.11 -
Using a food scale is actually less cleanup than cups and spoons to measure. After some practice, it takes very little time.PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »Yeah... we have scale, Ive just hesitated using it, because it seems like so much more work (cleanup) and I'm not experiencing a stall or anything. It is something I probably should be doing, though.
For things like peanut butter: put the jar on the scale, tare the scale (zero the weight reading), remove the amount that you want, put the jar back on the scale. The negative number will be how much you removed. Be sure to lick the spoon!
For things like salads, sandwiches, and recipes: put the bowl/plate on the scale, tare, add something and record the weight of that item, tare, add and record the weight of the next item, repeat as many times as needed.15 -
PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »
How long have you been eating like this, and how much weight have you lost in that time?
I've been doing this for almost a month, and I've lost 17lbs. Like I said, I've not "stalled" or anything that would make me think I'm in the supposed starvation mode... I was just curious on thoughts about a large caloric deficit, sometimes being under that magic 1200kcal, and not eating if not hungry.
I simply don't see the point in eating more, if I'm satisfied, you know? My energy levels are good, I'm sleeping well, I have more energy to work out than I did prior to this way of eating... so it seems to be working.
As I said earlier, starvation mode is not a thing, and not what you need to be concerned about.
17 lbs in a month, depending on how much water weight you lost, could be concerning, but maybe not. You really shouldn't continue at that rate for very long. Most people who are under-eating do feel fine, until they slam into the proverbial brick wall and then they don't. And it takes months to get back to feeling right.
The fact that you're "satisfied" doesn't mean your body has gotten everything it needs, that's as much emotion as it is biology. The point of eating enough is to fuel your body, it does a lot every day, and it can only mobilize so much stored fat at a time. If you aren't concerned about that, it's your choice. I do believe you are eating a bit more than you think. If you are losing more than 1% of your body weight per week, you are risking serious muscle loss, and once you get to within 40 or so lbs of a healthy weight you should slow down a bit more.
Using a food scale for a couple of weeks will at least give you a good idea of your actual calorie balance, even if you don't continue to use it going forward.
We get plenty of posts from people who lost weight fast, eating an unnecessarily small amount of calories, and they are unhappy with how they look and how little food they get to eat now that they are at goal. All we can do is warn you and wish you the best.
1 -
I appreciate the insight/input. A good 8 pounds came off quick and was probably water weight; I started out at 276, am currently at 259. I’m losing (minus what I think is the water weight) an average of aboit 2.5lbs a week. My diet is 2-3 eggs most mornings, sometimes with a breakfast meat, sometimes with avocado; there’s salad almost every day, and dinner is always a protein and vegetables. Some days are better than others, and you’re probably right about taking in more cals than I think, absent weighing my food.
I’ve read far more on here than I’ve posted over the years, and I’ve learned a lot... but there’s always more to learn. Thanks 🙂8 -
https://philmaffetone.com/#
Hey! This guy explained all this to me, basically its a healthy diet, but he explains that our bodies are designed to burn fat, but the level of processed/complex carbs we eat encourages us to use blood sugar for energy, and we get hungry when we dont have it.
Ive cut sugar and complex carbs and Im not as hungry at all.... I find counting protein and fat, making sure I get good quality veggies has been KEY, more stable blood sugar
Big focus on real food, helps, avoid labelling things as keto etc... you subject yourself to another set of rules you dont need. I personally wouldn't worry about being under calories, if you aren't hungry, thats a good thing. Dr Phil maffetone videos on you tube on nutrition are FAB.
Hope this helps. 24 -
PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »I appreciate the insight/input. A good 8 pounds came off quick and was probably water weight; I started out at 276, am currently at 259. I’m losing (minus what I think is the water weight) an average of aboit 2.5lbs a week. My diet is 2-3 eggs most mornings, sometimes with a breakfast meat, sometimes with avocado; there’s salad almost every day, and dinner is always a protein and vegetables. Some days are better than others, and you’re probably right about taking in more cals than I think, absent weighing my food.
I’ve read far more on here than I’ve posted over the years, and I’ve learned a lot... but there’s always more to learn. Thanks 🙂
My pleasure I don't mean to sound alarmist (although worrier is my natural state!) and ultimately we all have to arm ourselves with data, and other people's successes and failures, and then do what seems best to us. 4 -
It's not a thing.PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »I don't think I'm in starvation mode. I'm actually questioning if it's even a thing, especially for those of us who have a buttload of extra stored energy for the body to burn...
http://www.nowloss.com/starvation-mode-myth.htm
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
If starvation mode were a thing, anorexics would be obese and everybody in concentration camps would have weighed 300 pounds.
8 -
Using a food scale is actually less cleanup than cups and spoons to measure. After some practice, it takes very little time.PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »Yeah... we have scale, Ive just hesitated using it, because it seems like so much more work (cleanup) and I'm not experiencing a stall or anything. It is something I probably should be doing, though.
For things like peanut butter: put the jar on the scale, tare the scale (zero the weight reading), remove the amount that you want, put the jar back on the scale. The negative number will be how much you removed. Be sure to lick the spoon!
For things like salads, sandwiches, and recipes: put the bowl/plate on the scale, tare, add something and record the weight of that item, tare, add and record the weight of the next item, repeat as many times as needed.
Another vote for food scales, which are indeed less cleanup, but will make you sad when you realize just how small a T of peanut butter actually is.
I found measuring cups really stressful - I never knew how tightly to pack things down. I still use them for sugar, but not anything that is fluffy or unevenly shaped. Actually, sugar is probably the only thing I still use cups for.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
Another vote for food scales, which are indeed less cleanup, but will make you sad when you realize just how small a T of peanut butter actually is.
I found measuring cups really stressful - I never knew how tightly to pack things down. I still use them for sugar, but not anything that is fluffy or unevenly shaped. Actually, sugar is probably the only thing I still use cups for.
I started using the scale yesterday afternoon; I haven’t weighed peanut butter yet. But everything I did weigh out, was actually more than I’d been giving myself. I was surprised at how many almonds was actually 28g, compared to the palm-sized portion I had been doling out! I’m a little neurotic at times, so weighing stuff will be fun for a while!2 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »PhearlessPhreaks wrote: »I don't think I'm in starvation mode. I'm actually questioning if it's even a thing, especially for those of us who have a buttload of extra stored energy for the body to burn.
My carbs come completely from vegetables, of which I'm a fan; and generally, I am above the 1200kcal for the day.... but I'm almost never anywhere close to the supposed "goal". I just don't see the point of eating to that number, if I'm not hungry. Am I wrong?
*My diary is open, if anyone is interested in taking a look. I have my macros set to 60/30/10 Fat/Protein/Carb. They were set to 70/20/10, but my metabolic MD suggested the present ratio.
Measuring in cups and spoons is where you are likely going wrong, you're eating more than you think. Things like Peanut Butter measure as tbsp can be completely out, when you're eating a higher fat diet you've less wiggle room (Fat is 9 cals per gram as opposed to 4 cals per gram for Protein or Carbs) get yourself a food scale if you want to truly determine how much you're eating:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
This exactly! You will be amazed at what a serving REALLY is once you get a food scale.1 -
missjones93 wrote: »
This exactly! You will be amazed at what a serving REALLY is once you get a food scale.
We have one so out of curiosity, I’ve started using it; and you’re right, it IS amazing! Interestingly enough, I’ve actually been underestimating my proportions! Like I said in a previous post, I was surprised how many almonds actually made up 28 grams. Weighing will definitely keep me interested for a while, even if I’ve been pretty on point.
I get the feeling my post was a little misleading- I’m not struggling with anything- I’m not stalling, wondering why I’m not losing (because I am losing) but just had some thoughts and wanted to throw them out there. Regardless, I’m glad for whatever new information comes my way!
2
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