Do you believe in "starvation mode"

No but I do believe that you need to feed your body correctly if you want to shed fat but gain muscle. People who eat too few calories do lose weight and eventually, if they continue, become underweight. I struggled with this when I was an undergrad and became obsessed with nutrtition. I was way too thin because I only netted a few hundred calories per day. I lost a lot of the muscle I had built up after 13 years of swimming competitively. I was unwell, physically and mentally.

On another note, I also believe that people don't need to eat back all of their exercise calories, and that inaccurate burn estimates are responsible for quite a bit of frustration.

There's a sweet spot for each person, a daily number that allows you to lose weight but continue to workout and build and maintain muscle. And it changes on your journey, depending on how much you lose and how much you do.

I found this quite interesting, it explains where the theory of starvation came from, and why, in essence, it's incorrect.

http://fattyfightsback.blogspot.com/2009/03/mtyhbusters-starvation-mode.html

I'm also quite interested to know where people came up with the idea that you need to eat back your exercise calories. I understand that people get hungrier if they have done more, that's fine, and I understand that it shouldn't hinder your projected weight loss if you do, as long as you are still in deficit, but I can't understand the insistence that you 'must' do this. As I understand it, you need to eat an approximate amount of calories - between 1000 to 1200 depending on the person, to meet your nutritional needs. Once you have eaten them, they don't disappear if you exercise though, so unless you are wanting to create muscle and therefore requiring extra protein, why do you actually 'need' more? I've not seen anything on here to make me believe that it is necessary, and even MFP, which gives you dire warnings about actually eating under 1200, doesn't say anything about your net calories.

Sorry that was a bit of a rant, but I just felt the need to say it

People "came up with idea" to eat your exercise calories back because that is exactly how MFP is set up. It tells you to eat them.
Any time you go to someone like a nutritionist, or even do the math yourself, the calories burned in exercise are accounted for in some way. And MFP does tell me if my net is too low.
A nutritionist will figure out your base rate, figure out your daily activity level, then add in how often you expect to exercise and come up with a number. They will then subtract a number of calories, usually about 500 for every pound per week aim, and that is your number of calories per week. For example, my trainer came up with the number of around 1700 for me.
MFP figures out your base rate and adds in your daily activity, but does not account for exercise. When you log exercise, you are told to eat those extra calorie. MFP figured me at 1450 for a lb a week, same target as the trainer. When I burn my 300-400 calories and eat them back, I am consuming about 1700-1800 calories a day - same thing the trainer suggested. Two different formulas, same result.

There are a number of reasons to maintain a moderate deficit of calories instead of creating a large one. One being that slower weight loss in larger people can decrease the extra skin. Eating too few calories can have a negative impact on your metabolism in the long run. No, I am not saying "starvation mode", but it can make it harder to lose weight or require you to cut more calories out. IF you are eating the bare minimum, that doesn't give you any extra room to go.

I am in the slow and steady camp. Feed your body properly,workout and you will see results. There is no need to starve your body to achieve results.

Protein doesn't create muscle, lifting heavy will and you won't gain muscle on a calorie deficit. Protein does help maintain the muscle. Losing muscle = lower metabolism. Muscle burns calories. Too few calories = burning muscle = lower calorie burned.

I prefer the term "storage mode." And yes, I "believe" in it, because it stalled my weight loss for a month. After I started eating closer to my BMR I lost 4 pounds. So, yes. Yes I do.

You can still lose weight-- just not fat. When your body does not have the necessary fuel from food it starts eating away your muscles for energy. I started with 1200 cals as MFP suggested but as I became more educated about food and my body I realized that I needed to eat more (and clean). I eat around 2000 cals when I exercise and still lose and love how my muscles are shaping up. Google a pound of fat to see how it looks like-- that's what you want to lose, not muscle!

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing



This link is the story that fit me to a tee! I think it's worth a read!

For many of the reasons mentioned above, no. I think it is a nice excuse for us to eat more, LOL.

It comes down to this - the more calories burned, the more weight you lose. The effects people usually see is NOT that they messed up their metabolism, but they have put themselves on a diet they could never maintain in the long run - so then they eat so much more than they should when they are finally off of it.

Yo yo dieting is a very different thing. I believe in THAT.

I prefer the term "storage mode." And yes, I "believe" in it, because it stalled my weight loss for a month. After I started eating closer to my BMR I lost 4 pounds. So, yes. Yes I do.

Thank you for sharing this. This helps me be more comfortable with the idea of raising my calories)