starvation mode

I eat 3 squares a day and if I exercise that day, than I'll eat IF I'm hungry. If I have the extra calories to eat than fine but if I'm not hungry than I don't worry about it. My body will tell me what it needs.

I eat 3 squares a day and if I exercise that day, than I'll eat IF I'm hungry. If I have the extra calories to eat than fine but if I'm not hungry than I don't worry about it. My body will tell me what it needs.

Sadly, the majority of people are here on MFP because they did exactly that, listened to their body, instead of using their mind.

Now they have weight to lose.

Time to listen to the mind and think this out.

It's a lovely sounding idea, don't get me wrong, but perhaps not the best principle.

But the exercise I do is not strenuous like years ago (before I bought an exercise bike and stopped going to the gym daily); and I don't even sweat, but it states it's something like 150 calories for 1/2 hour.

Anyway, I would gather to guess it's a few hundred calories off between consumption of food with the addition of exercise, for me anyway. I know my food content is pretty accurate for weights and measures - including the guesswork.

Now you actually have the idea very right on.

The deficit is supposed to come from maintenance calories, not BMR calories.

Because the normal non-exercise daily activities that make up the maintenance calories are generally low key enough, the main energy source is fat. No need to eat that back.

The problem is today with our culture, there is very little daily activity to give much of a safe spread between maintenance and BMR level.

And that level of activity you are doing is probably right at the safe level, perhaps top of it. No need to eat that back.

The only problem is that if you selected too aggressive of a weight loss goal, MFP is more than happy to put your goal calories way under your BMR, unless the math makes it go under 1200, then for safety reasons they stop there.

This is why when I do numbers for people and they are high calorie diets, I tell them to only eat back to be well above BMR and closer to the true daily calorie.
You arent guaranteed to work out every day so if you rely on eating back training calories but for one reason or another you arent able to workout...now you are under BMR and possibly heading for trouble.

Create a deficit through working out not through starving!

Another point is most people dont even know what their TDEE is!
So they panic when they set calories to 1500 and they go over not realizing they expend 2600-3k calories a day.

the least complicated this process is the better!

Know your Big 3!
BMR
TDEE
Body Fat %!

I found this article very informative: The truth about Starvation Mode - http://caloriecount.about.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode

Yes, they talk about the study that was mentioned in posts above.

I always find it interesting that a major piece in their "semi-starvation diet" seems to be missed.

"Their calories were restricted in various phases, but the least amount of calories they were allowed was 50% of the "normal" maintenance calories. Notice, this was dubbed a "semi" starvation diet.

Yes, their metabolic rates were significantly lowered -- to something like 40% below baseline."

So they ate at 50% from their maintenance calories. So guys with a maintenance of 2500-3000 are eating at 1250-1500.
And that caused their BMR to lower by 40% below baseline.

So this is NOT even getting to the level of many on here happily reporting that they have trouble eating as high as 1200, their BMR was 1400 or 1500, and they exercise to net calories of 700-800.
That is 50% of their BMR - not even their maintenance calories as in the study.

So still not claiming starvation, but if these guys at 50% of maintenance, at the worst point in their diets, lowered their metabolism 40%, what happens to people that net calorie at 50% of their BMR, and maybe 70-80% of their maintenance.

Ugh. No wonder you touch one extra binge and the weight jumps up.

And in case someone with a 1400 BMR eating at 1200 and exercising out another 500 calories on a regular basis without replacement - a 40% drop in metabolism would be a loss of 560 calories every single day of free burn.

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:

First you should know how many calories are equal to a pound of body fat:1 Pound of Body Fat = 3500 calories
To lose 1 pound of body fat in a week, you would have to cut/burn 500 calories per day times 7 days. To lose this weight in a healthy, maintainable way combine lower caloric intake with exercise.
So to lose 1 pound of fat per week healthily:
Subtract 250 from your BMR. This is your daily intake of calories for weight loss.
Add enough exercise to burn 250 calories/day.
Together, this creates a negative balance of 500 calories per day, or 3500 per week.

To lose 2 lbs. of body fat per week, you would have to cut/burn 1000 calories per day times 7 days:

Subtract 500 from your BMR.
Add enough exercise to burn 500 calories/day.

It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:

First you should know how many calories are equal to a pound of body fat:1 Pound of Body Fat = 3500 calories
To lose 1 pound of body fat in a week, you would have to cut/burn 500 calories per day times 7 days. To lose this weight in a healthy, maintainable way combine lower caloric intake with exercise.
So to lose 1 pound of fat per week healthily:
Subtract 250 from your BMR. This is your daily intake of calories for weight loss.
Add enough exercise to burn 250 calories/day.
Together, this creates a negative balance of 500 calories per day, or 3500 per week.

To lose 2 lbs. of body fat per week, you would have to cut/burn 1000 calories per day times 7 days:

Subtract 500 from your BMR.
Add enough exercise to burn 500 calories/day.

It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

I think your beyond wrong on this and in also believe what you've posted here ( advocating 200 net calories a day ) is downright dangerous. I'm not sure you understood what the American College of Sports Medicine actually said. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understood your post to say, eat 1200, burn 1000 which leaves you roughly 200 calories a day net. It's quite impossible and very unhealthy to try to run all your body's vital organs on only 200 calories a day.

I'm not trying to insult you but what you've just said is directly contrary to my doctor, my kinesiologist and my sports nutritionist. If your going to say that this is a fact please provide the actual documentation showing how you determined this.

While it is true that the American College of Sports Medicine said 500 calorie deficit a day is acceptable for weight loss, I don't believe they said that creating a 200 calorie a day net is healthy.

Some people get confused BUT, this i what the American College of Sports Medicine has to say:

First you should know how many calories are equal to a pound of body fat:1 Pound of Body Fat = 3500 calories
To lose 1 pound of body fat in a week, you would have to cut/burn 500 calories per day times 7 days. To lose this weight in a healthy, maintainable way combine lower caloric intake with exercise.
So to lose 1 pound of fat per week healthily:
Subtract 250 from your BMR. This is your daily intake of calories for weight loss.
Add enough exercise to burn 250 calories/day.
Together, this creates a negative balance of 500 calories per day, or 3500 per week.

To lose 2 lbs. of body fat per week, you would have to cut/burn 1000 calories per day times 7 days:

Subtract 500 from your BMR.
Add enough exercise to burn 500 calories/day.

It’s not recommended to cut your total calories by more than 1000 below your BMR. Doing so could slow your metabolism and cause your weight loss to plateau. In fact, the American College of Sports Medicine recommends that minimum caloric intake should never be less than 1200 calories/day for women, and 1800 calories/day for men.

That's caloric intake folks, actual food eaten. So EAT your 1200 calories & BURN 1000. perfectly healthy per American College of Sports Medicine.

Lol. Too bad it isnt really about 3500 cals to lose fat and 2500+ to gain muscle. This stuff would be easy!

I would suggest reading Jillian Michael's new metabolism book. In it she describes how she was a mess, her metabolism had slowed down, many of her hormone levels were way off.... she was always tired. She describes exercising hour upon hour at the gym and having trouble keeping her weight where she wanted it. Her solution was to start eating more of the right kinds of foods.... she also went organic to avoid toxins that were causing her body hormonal problems, and now she only exercises 3 to 5 hours a week, feels so much better, eats tons more food and is keeping off the weight. Food for thought!

I think the key point here is that jillian was always tired. Rarely do I hear posters here say they are eating 1200 calories a day, exercising like crazy, yet always tired. The complaint is usually that they just aren't losing weight despite their efforts. I would agree with anyone that would say if you don't have the energy to fuel your workouts, then you should increase your calorie consumption. But I don't think there is a magic number like 1200 or that someone has to eat back their exercise calories. You don't need to eat so much if you have plenty of fat storage available. How small your caloric deficit should be has more to do with how lean you are.

ah but don't people think they ought to be tired exercising this much? i bet it doesn't even occur to them...

How do you increase intake by 100 calories per week to a goal of 1500 when she was eating between 1000-1200 to begin with?

She's eating 1000 now. So next week she eats 1100 (you know 1000+100). The week after that she eats 1200. Next week 1300. Then 1400. Then finally 1500. It's as easy and mathematically possible as counting 1 2 3 4 5.

How do you increase intake by 100 calories per week to a goal of 1500 when she was eating between 1000-1200 to begin with?

She's eating 1000 now. So next week she eats 1100 (you know 1000+100). The week after that she eats 1200. Next week 1300. Then 1400. Then finally 1500. It's as easy and mathematically possible as counting 1 2 3 4 5.

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. It's a 6 weeks study so i imagine the last 2 weeks she consumed the goal of 1500 calories consumed.
1500 calories of good food as listed in the study. So not just calories, but the manner in which she ate them were changed as well. smaller meals, all with protein, and some resistance training to build muscle. we all know muscle boosts metabolism. I'm sure she's still training for her triathlon, so you know this woman is burning more that 300 calories a day, thus putting her under that magic 1200 (net) calorie number, but she still lost weight. So why are we using this study as an example?

Lol show of hands who thinks the 1200 calorie fail diet works?

Oh no, I sense this post is about to get ugly like every single Starvation Mode post in the forums


Edited by NBEric on Tue 02/07/12 03:56 PM

HAHAHA!!!

What was your point?
Who said anything about eating under 1200 calories??? The woman in this study clearly has a net of under 1200 calories.

Mine is that who ever originally posted this to back their "don't have a net under 1200 calories" should have realized that this study promotes just that. Yes, they upped her calories, and completely changed the way, and quality of food she ate. They also ADDED strength training, thus building muscle to boost metabolism.Let's not forget her "strenuous triathlon and marathon training program" The study didn't say she stopped. I'm sure her net was under her BMR

That article was originally included to show that you can lower metabolism, and conversely, you can recover and have it go up.
The point was you can eat or eat and exercise a net under your BMR and lower it.

This is not a scientific study either, so not coming from a lab Dr, who cares. It is a case, an incident, just showing specifically for one person what studies have already shown.

The thing to catch in there too - she had Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR), not BMR, tests done. Here RMR went back up to around 1200 from 900. RMR is NOT your TDEE, other point to realize. RMR is much closer to your BMR than your TDEE, and has to do with how efficient your body is, basically fit. Merely being awake for fit person causes less rise, more rise for unfit.
Since RMR is based on your BMR though, that obviously went up too.
But indeed, it does mean her BMR is less than 1200 in her case.
Since no height was given, I'm guessing she was indeed short, and being older her BMR would be expected to be lower.
As older gal, I'm betting the triathlon training was not to place and win prize money, but to finish. And not an Ironman distance, but some Sprint or International distance.
So I wouldn't be too impressed with the triathlon training aspect except it was a great goal to reach for. And automatic cross-training.
Anyway, some level of exercise that probably amounted to about 300 cal avg a day. Probably a nice slow total hour.

So I wouldn't be surpised if she did indeed net right back to her BMR, probably around 1000.

The human body can ONLY lose so much FAT in a day.
After said fat is exhausted the receptors kick in and start targeting Active Tissue.
This is an act to drop TDEE and slow the body down.
The Active Tissue is lean mass.
This includes skeletal muscle as well as the heart.
Most of the time the body will catabolize damaged tissue.
For people who are into working out this could be the muscle group you just hit hard in the gym but arent recovering with proper nutrition.
Congratulations!
You just failed at dieting!

This is completely off topic, but since you brought it up. How much fat can the body lose in one day before it targets active tissue?

This is an interesting read on the subject of fat loss by Martin Berkham.

Enjoy!

Body fat and fat burning

The greater the body fat mass, the higher the abundance of fatty acids readily available for lipolysis - simply put, the fatter you are, the greater % fat used whenever some calorie deficit is created. Vice versa, of course, as leanness means less fat burning.

Fat burning here is simply the choice of substrates in fuel economy at any given moment - greater fat burning, just think of that as greater % fat used, etc. As you know, we burn a mix of fat, glucose, protein, and this can be roughly measured by R.Q.

Read for some talk about that (R.Q) http://www.leangains.com/2010/11/cheat-day-strategies-for-hedonist.html


Quantifying Fat Burning


So all this sounds simple, quite logical. There's even a formula, a paper with all kinds of long equations, in which we find that ~77 kcal/kg fat mass is a theoretical limit, the maximum of fat from fat stores that you can burn off in a day.

So if you're 80 kg and 15% body fat, you can mobilize 924 kcal per day from your fat stores, about -150 g fat loss per day, according to this formula.

Exceed the number, get a -1500 kcal deficit one day, some 345 kcal or -50 g mass would then come from other fuel sources, protein, etc.

It doesn't take much thinking to have all kinds of questions and doubts about such a formula - I have never used it - but I don't think you should see this as anything else than a Fancy Formula.

It is useful to demonstrate the simple - "the fatter you are/the more you burn" etc - that fact that we simple have to try harder to avoid muscle loss as we lean down. You need to take it real easy in the single-digits, like I've said before.


Fat:Muscle Loss


So body fat by itself spares lean tissue and this is something that has been studied in great detail. In studies on starvation, lean mean lose muscle fast, in contrast to obese men that are not so severely affected, losing mostly fat.

Some figures for reference, from memory, fat loss:lean mass during weight loss in lean men 30-40% lean mass, some 10-20% in obese. This is just Average Joe & Jane, no training, standard diet, meaning a diet quite low in protein compared to what most sensible folks eat.

Ok, so there's seems to be some kind of priority system here in regards to fuel selection, and sure enough it is just that, and it provided a great survival advantage during our evolution.

It's really quite brilliant - like a calculator, thinking way ahead. Very deterministic, unless you do something to affect the process - meaning do some weight training, eat high-protein diet, etc. If you don't, you will lose weight in a very predictable pattern - clearly mapped out in key stuides like the Minnesota Starvation Study.

And the study of metabolism and metabolic fuel economy, in men and women, of varying body fatness, allowed some quantification of fat loss relative to amino acid oxidation (muscle loss) during fasting, prolonged fasting and starvation, i.e. a time period spanning


Evolution and Starvation


So let's see about those losses now. The average human can sustain the loss of one third of his muscle mass, before starvation death occurs.

One third is some critical point, after which the tissues around the heart and other life-supporting tissues start to get catabolized. (And now, since one third is what goes for Average Joe, with his average muscle mass, a large muscle mass, all factors being equal, will be catabolized faster relatively speaking - meaning % muscle loss to fat % loss in starvation. Or % muscle to % fat in a calorie deficit.)

Similarly, a complete depletion of peripheral body fat stores causes death for similar reasons, as fat stores in critical organs, like the brain, the next ones to go after that point.

(Intriguing phenomenon, for the morbid type, is the so called "king penguin syndrome", a peculiar state at the verge of death, that induces a rapid increase in metabolic rate, causing death faster than predicted. It's not quite clear what this is. Doctors at Auschwitz saw this ever so often, and I recall vaguely their tales, 'as if the person is already dead, and wills his body into death by force of will', something along those lines. Anyway, quite random, but that's how it is around here.)

Ok, so to maximize our survival time during starvation, increasing the likelihood of us finding food, and surviing, our physiology is hardwired to select fuels strategically - more fat if you got it, more muscle protein if you got muscle to spare, etc.

This selection of substrates, very precise, has one purpose - maximize survival. You die when:

1. One third of muscle mass is lost.

2. When (almost) all fat is lost.

What good would it be to burn only fat, and die quickly a ripped corpse? No, obviously not so good.

So our metabolism make the right choices, our physiology drags it out, and once we're chewing on those last fat stores - let's say Average Joe, no training, just dropping weight all down to 5% body fat, you've reached a point where muscle mass loss dominate over fat loss. That might not sound like best choices to you, but our DNA hasnät changed much.

So you see, that's why Average Joe & Jane always lose muscle on a diet. It's yet another evolutinary mechanism, quite useless today, some will argue.

Cursed by natural bodybuilders who find their bench dropping 30-40 lbs on that last 4-week stint leading up to the stage - not so strange, when they have only the capacity to mobilize some 400 calories of fat, and their coach tells them to do 2 hours of cardio every morning on a 1600-kcal low-carb diet*. It's just unreasonable, there is no such capacity, and no sense to do it unless you want to lose muscle mass.

I don't think it's "starvation mode" but there is something that CAN cause weight loss to stall and slow, and it's not just people overestimating burns and underestimating calories (although of course it can be that, too)

Let me tell you how my yoyo dieting has gone for the last five years - Start reducing calories- lose weight.
Get excited, start an exercise program- lose weight
Get even more excited, decided to exercise more and eat even less, stall and keep losing/gaining the same three pounds - for months.
So, exercise EVEN MORE (2 + hours a day) and cut my calories even further (1000 cals/day) - gain.
Get discouraged, have a binge day - gain 6-7 pounds, give up in frustration.

This time when I hit that point of gaining and losing the same three pounds, I decided to change my calories (from 1290 a day to 2200 a day) and keep up the exercise. And the scale is consistenly moving down again. And I have SO much more energy.

I don't think it's "starvation mode" but there is something that CAN cause weight loss to stall and slow, and it's not just people overestimating burns and underestimating calories (although of course it can be that, too)

Let me tell you how my yoyo dieting has gone for the last five years - Start reducing calories- lose weight.
Get excited, start an exercise program- lose weight
Get even more excited, decided to exercise more and eat even less, stall and keep losing/gaining the same three pounds - for months.
So, exercise EVEN MORE (2 + hours a day) and cut my calories even further (1000 cals/day) - gain.
Get discouraged, have a binge day - gain 6-7 pounds, give up in frustration.

This time when I hit that point of gaining and losing the same three pounds, I decided to change my calories (from 1290 a day to 2200 a day) and keep up the exercise. And the scale is consistenly moving down again. And I have SO much more energy.

Wonderful post! This is a perfect example of what this discussion is all about, imho. Glad you found the answer.

I zig-zag and, thus, my weekly calories are up there even if they don't always show up in each daily total because I prefer banking calories for splurges. I'm slowly working on raising my weekly calorie target. Anyway, I can now pig-out and not have a gain. In fact, I really splurged last Sunday at a Super Bowl party and actually dropped a pound when I weighed on Tuesday.

Isn't it nice to not have those big gains from splurges?