Starvation Mode/ Calorie Deficit/ Losing weight

This is a pretty good piece Dave. Sums up the triggers for the famine response nicely.

I will make one observation:
The world health organization came out with the 1200 number back in the 80's and it's still generally followed today, but they put that number out for Women, for men they put out a number of 1800 calories.

I had the study they did online, but I had looked it up earlier today (don't ask me why, I'm a freak about this junk) from my work computer and I'm just too tired to go searching through the W.H.O.'s VERY convoluted website to find it again. ask me again tomorrow if you want the study, I'll find it when I HAVEN'T beaten the crap out of my body with a full body weight training circuit.

cheers,

-Banks

I assume this is 1200 net calories? For example If I burn 4000 cals I need to eat 2800cals?

I don't understand the part :
"When you're trying to lose weight, your main goal is to create a calorie deficit (burn more calories than you take in)"

I'm supposed to eat 1200 cals a day. Does that mean I need to burn over 1200 cals a day? That seems to be impossible unless I work out on the elliptical for 2 hours.

I don't understand the part :
"When you're trying to lose weight, your main goal is to create a calorie deficit (burn more calories than you take in)"

I'm supposed to eat 1200 cals a day. Does that mean I need to burn over 1200 cals a day? That seems to be impossible unless I work out on the elliptical for 2 hours.

no,,,you can creat a deficit with 10 cals on the ellptical..your body needs 1200 to stay the way it is with your normal activity...anything you burn with exercise will be over the 1200 you burn normally...if you just eat 1200 cals and do not exercise..you will stay the same weight

the overall goal to weight loss is to create a deficit at the end of the day - eat less calories than you burn. at 1200 calories you are already at a daily deficit - if you exercise that creates an even larger deficit

a deficit of about 500 calories a week is about a pound a week I beleive.
your body needs calories to function, to live. If you eat 1200 calories and burn 600 in a workout, you've only left your body with 600 to work - like if you only put 1/2 tank of gas in your car, don't expect it to give you a full tank's worth of mileage. It needs fuel to keep going.

Yes you can lose weight fat by cutting your calories so low but is it the right way - probably not unless you want to lose muscle mass too.

check out your BMR on the MFP tools that's what your body needs. I'll bet that it's higher than the 1200 number that keeps being thrown out there.

What is your BMR
Your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is an estimate of how many calories you'd burn if you were to do nothing but rest for 24 hours. It represents the minimum amount of energy needed to keep your body functioning, including breathing and keeping your heart beating.

Your BMR does not include the calories you burn from normal daily activities or exercise.

MFP is telling you that you should have the minimum base 1200 calories and add extra for the exercise - if you burned the extra thousand this site is telling you that yes indeed you should eat them. the base 1200 is the deficit and any extra you burn is extra you eat.

Again I reiterate what Banks said - 1200 is a womens # men's is higher.

so you're burning more than you're eating if you eat 1200 and your BMR is 1500 - deficit daily is 300
300 * 7 = 2100 deficit for the week.

Maybe this is a better way to explain it....

eat 1200/day
exercise burn 500

1200 - 500 = 700 which is well below the minimal 1200, and WAY below what your BMR is.

1200 is already a deficit from what you "need". If you look at the BMR it tells you what you burn without doing anything else.

I guess I am doing a poor job explaining it....

go into my tools and do a maintenance goal - it will show you what you would need to eat in calories to stay where you are - anything less than that is a deficit creating weight loss.

So I looked mine up and 1920 is a maintenance goal (with no exercise) - so that's what I would need to eat to stay where I am....

so at 1400 a day like I am at I am 520 per day less than what my maintenance calories would be.

I am me again!

Good Night Dave! :flowerforyou:

so you're burning more than you're eating if you eat 1200 and your BMR is 1500 - deficit daily is 300
300 * 7 = 2100 deficit for the week. yes this is true

Maybe this is a better way to explain it....

eat 1200/day
exercise burn 500

1200 - 500 = 700 which is well below the minimal 1200, and WAY below what your BMR is.

if you need 1200 and eat 1200 then you are even...if you burn 500 with exercise you have a deficit of 500 but if you ate the 1200 to feed your bmr then the deficit is satisfied by fat and you lose weight...if you need 1200 and burn 500 and then eat 1700 you will stay the same weight

I think people are confusing BMR with Maintenance calories. BMR is about 60% of what you need in order to maintain your weight (25% comes from daily activity, and 15% comes from thermogenesis, or heat production and chemical reactions in the body).

And for most healthy adult females, their BMR is somewhere higher then 1200. 1200 is only relevant because in the 1980s the World Health Organization did an exhaustive study and concluded that for women 1200 calories is the minimum amount of calories needed to provide sufficient macro nutrients (fat, carbs, and protein) in order to survive long term without eventually becoming malnourished (that doesn't mean healthy, just malnourished). For men that number was 1800. Mind you, guys, these numbers are an average. It's not recommended for a healthy person without the desire to lose weight to go below your BMR. Obese people can for a while, and really small framed adults can stay slightly below their BMR for a bit because they are so close to that number already.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit. :happy:

It's a matter for some debate, douganl.

Different trainers follow different rules of engagement as to where your cut off should be. And to be honest, none of them have the definitive answer for everyone. Because our bodies are all so highly diversified, what works for one, may not necessarilly work for all.

The one thing trainers, doctors, and research scientists almost universally agree with is that the 1200/1800 rule (women/men), is pretty much a line in the sand. With the exception of people who have so many fat stores that the body doesn't recognize a severe lack of food (obesity) or where the body is so small that they just don't need as many macro nutrients as the rest of us (women who are very short, somewhere in the 5' and lower range with a medium to small body frame), this rule is pretty much a given.

As to how much you should eat to provide a HEALTHY deficit. Well, that depends on many factors.
The determination shouldn't be made until someone knows what their BMI is, what their body fat% is, whether they have a metabolic rate in the normal range, whether they have any medical conditions that may preclude them from a normal weight loss (I.E. hypertension, or diabetes for example), and what their maintenance and BMR calories should be at.

Ultimately, most studies and doctors agree, a slow, stable, gradual weight loss program with a balanced healthy diet and regular exercise that actually causes physical depletion of energy stores (I.E. if you walk all day and then go for a slow walk at night, you're really not helping yourself. You need to actually stress the muscles a little to get real benefit from exercise.) is the best way to change yourself and lower your weight.
Now, you may ask, "What is considered slow and steady?" and I'll answer, most trainers and doctors agree, that for a reasonable healthy person (I.E. someone with a BMI under 30) you can shoot for between 1/4 and 1 lb per week weight loss. What you have to remember is not everyone will achieve results with 1 lb a week, and for those with a BMI already down around 25 or lower, even 1/2 a pound may be too much for their body. When you get to that area of BMI, Body Fat % plays a far larger roll, as that is what the body should be using to make up the difference. if your body fat % is low, then you will have a far harder time losing weight. And yes, it is possible to have a low Body fat % and a BMI above 25 (high muscle to fat ratio would do this, which is why athletes don't get a very accurate BMI score)

it's VERY IMPORTANT to note, that these are all NET NUMBERS. In other words, these numbers mean your deficit AFTER you calculate in how much exercise you do. Take my goals over the last 15 months for example.

I started 15 months ago with a BMI of 31 and a Body fat % of around 21%
I was trying for 2 lbs a week goal (and succeeding) with a NET calorie deficit of 1000 calories

12 months ago I had lost about 22 lbs and was showing slower losses. So I redid my numbers and goals to 1.5 lbs per week NET deficit in calories (750 calorie a day deficit) and continued losing successfully. At that point my BMI was about 28 and my Body fat % was about 18%

8 months ago I downed it again (this time realizing why right away) to about 1 lb per
week (500 cals), I had redone my numbers and realized I was only about 15 lbs from my goal. I now had a BMI of about 26 and a body fat % of 16%.

5 months ago I was at my goal of 180 lbs. My BMI was 24.5 and my Body fat was at about 14%. At that point I maintained (no more calorie deficit) and went on a far more demanding workout schedule to lower my body fat while not losing any more weight. This worked for the most part, while I did lose 2 lbs inadvertantly, it was just because I losing body fat without gaining significant muscle (it's hard to gain much muscle without eating at a caloric surplus)

For the last 3 months I have been vigorously attempting to gain back muscle, increase my anabolic metabolism (the hormones that increase muscle mass and cancel out cortisol production) and have gained 5 lbs of muscle mass back. I know this because my body fat % is now at about 11% and my BMI has raised from 23.5 to 24.

So that's a good example of a healthy weight loss and diet program. Notice how my net calories only went under my BMR when I was obese (my maintenance calories started at 2950, so even when obese I was eating 1950 PLUS what ever calories I burned exercising) my BMR at the time was 2070. But never went below the 1800 limit for males NET. As I improved, my calories rose above my BMR and continued to rise compensating for the additional energy I needed to fuel the muscles I was enhancing and creating.


Sorry for the length, but I think that the long description was necessary as it kind of points out a good road map for people.

It's a matter for some debate, douganl.

Different trainers follow different rules of engagement as to where your cut off should be. And to be honest, none of them have the definitive answer for everyone. Because our bodies are all so highly diversified, what works for one, may not necessarilly work for all.

The one thing trainers, doctors, and research scientists almost universally agree with is that the 1200/1800 rule (women/men), is pretty much a line in the sand. With the exception of people who have so many fat stores that the body doesn't recognize a severe lack of food (obesity) or where the body is so small that they just don't need as many macro nutrients as the rest of us (women who are very short, somewhere in the 5' and lower range with a medium to small body frame), this rule is pretty much a given.

As to how much you should eat to provide a HEALTHY deficit. Well, that depends on many factors.
The determination shouldn't be made until someone knows what their BMI is, what their body fat% is, whether they have a metabolic rate in the normal range, whether they have any medical conditions that may preclude them from a normal weight loss (I.E. hypertension, or diabetes for example), and what their maintenance and BMR calories should be at.

Ultimately, most studies and doctors agree, a slow, stable, gradual weight loss program with a balanced healthy diet and regular exercise that actually causes physical depletion of energy stores (I.E. if you walk all day and then go for a slow walk at night, you're really not helping yourself. You need to actually stress the muscles a little to get real benefit from exercise.) is the best way to change yourself and lower your weight.
Now, you may ask, "What is considered slow and steady?" and I'll answer, most trainers and doctors agree, that for a reasonable healthy person (I.E. someone with a BMI under 30) you can shoot for between 1/4 and 1 lb per week weight loss. What you have to remember is not everyone will achieve results with 1 lb a week, and for those with a BMI already down around 25 or lower, even 1/2 a pound may be too much for their body. When you get to that area of BMI, Body Fat % plays a far larger roll, as that is what the body should be using to make up the difference. if your body fat % is low, then you will have a far harder time losing weight. And yes, it is possible to have a low Body fat % and a BMI above 25 (high muscle to fat ratio would do this, which is why athletes don't get a very accurate BMI score)

it's VERY IMPORTANT to note, that these are all NET NUMBERS. In other words, these numbers mean your deficit AFTER you calculate in how much exercise you do. Take my goals over the last 15 months for example.

I started 15 months ago with a BMI of 31 and a Body fat % of around 21%
I was trying for 2 lbs a week goal (and succeeding) with a NET calorie deficit of 1000 calories

12 months ago I had lost about 22 lbs and was showing slower losses. So I redid my numbers and goals to 1.5 lbs per week NET deficit in calories (750 calorie a day deficit) and continued losing successfully. At that point my BMI was about 28 and my Body fat % was about 18%

8 months ago I downed it again (this time realizing why right away) to about 1 lb per
week (500 cals), I had redone my numbers and realized I was only about 15 lbs from my goal. I now had a BMI of about 26 and a body fat % of 16%.

5 months ago I was at my goal of 180 lbs. My BMI was 24.5 and my Body fat was at about 14%. At that point I maintained (no more calorie deficit) and went on a far more demanding workout schedule to lower my body fat while not losing any more weight. This worked for the most part, while I did lose 2 lbs inadvertantly, it was just because I losing body fat without gaining significant muscle (it's hard to gain much muscle without eating at a caloric surplus)

For the last 3 months I have been vigorously attempting to gain back muscle, increase my anabolic metabolism (the hormones that increase muscle mass and cancel out cortisol production) and have gained 5 lbs of muscle mass back. I know this because my body fat % is now at about 11% and my BMI has raised from 23.5 to 24.

So that's a good example of a healthy weight loss and diet program. Notice how my net calories only went under my BMR when I was obese (my maintenance calories started at 2950, so even when obese I was eating 1950 PLUS what ever calories I burned exercising) my BMR at the time was 2070. But never went below the 1800 limit for males NET. As I improved, my calories rose above my BMR and continued to rise compensating for the additional energy I needed to fuel the muscles I was enhancing and creating.


Sorry for the length, but I think that the long description was necessary as it kind of points out a good road map for people.

well said Banks. Agree with everything you said. Just wanted to chime in and say for anyone worrying about this, you don't have to. Just make sure you:

1) set a goal that is heathy according to your BMI (as banks pointed out)
2) are eating your exercise calories back
3) never eat net calories below 1200 (for a woman)

it's really not as complcated as it seems, but if reading all this stuff is confusing you, just follow those 3 things and "starvation mode" shouldn't be a concern. There's another good post going on right now about starvation mode as well, it's a bit more.... in lamen's terms. :flowerforyou: