Starvation Mode
Replies
-
pasta is like dead flesh. Hate the stuff.
I have no idea why people even like bread and pasta. I have never been big on either one.
Tasteless grains that are mere carriers for the foods that hold the real flavor.0 -
I think that all of the beautiful, wonderful ladies on here that have struggled with ED and are recovering are true experts in this field. I can't believe that their testimonies wouldn't strike home in this area and I hope that if anyone is struggling, they will recognize the path they might be heading on the more they reduce their calories to dangerous levels by reading what is being shared by those that have been there.0
-
I am sure most people would agree that it's important to eat enough to support basic metabolic function. What many are getting all worked up about is what that number should be. Some people are really hung up on getting the amount MFP recommends. The problem is, they recommend a number of calories for you based on your height, weight, gender, and exercise alone. There is a HUGE range of metabolisms for people of the same height and weight, and therefore you can't blindly follow their guidelines. They give you a certain number of calories based on the exercise you do, but guess what? Not everyone expends the same number of calories doing the same exercise. Some people exercise more efficiently and don't need as many extra calories as they recommend. It all depends on your body, and therefore you do in fact have to pay attention to how you feel, and not just to the number. I maintain a healthy BMI and 16 percent body fat at 12-1600 calories a day (5'3 woman). I have experimented and I know for a fact that I gain weight and feel lethargic if I up my calories to the 1800-2000 they recommend for me on days when I exercise. I would rather continue feeling energetic and healthy, even if my intake doesn't exactly match their calorie calculators. I have been eating like this for years now and no, my hair is not falling out either. If this is the so called starvation mode, I'll take it.0
-
Here I wrote the physiological effects of a low calorie diet. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/590135-physiological-responses-in-starvation-low-calorie-diets
ps never seen someone with an ED who has a 6 pack.
Seriously. I sure as hell didn't have one. Skinny yes. Muscles no.0 -
Plus, it's rare that someone who is underfeeding is able to maintain it for long enough to lose all the weight they need to lose. Often, they give in to cravings and binge....resulting in shame and possibly, purging. Or, they give up because the dificulty of maintaining a VLCD is too much to handle. So they go back to eating normally and put all the weight (plus some) back on.
Note: I am referring to people who are NOT under a physician's care. Medically supervised diets are being controlled and monitored to ensure minimal harm to one's body.0 -
I just go with what my body tells me. If I'm hungry I eat and if I'm not then I don't make myself eat. If you are not feeling hungry then I doubt you'll be in "starvation mode". Also everybodys metabolism is different so if eating under 1200 works for you and you're losing weight then I don't see any problems. I f you hit a plateau or start suffering ill effects then maybe up the intake. People on here are so hardcore about starvation mode. Anyways bottom line just do what works for you and as always good luck on your weight loss journey
This is really the best solution. People need to listen to their bodies more often. I've noticed that most of the people who are outspoken against eating 1200 calories a day are men, for whom 1200 calories would almost certainly be too little. But for many women, it is a perfectly acceptable amount of calories that leaves us feeling satisfied. You have to listen to your own body, and if you're feeling low energy and run down you could very well be eating too few calories. If you're feeling great and energetic, and maintaining or moving towards a healthy weight, the number of calories you are eating is working for you whether it is 1200 or 2200. Don't try to cram everyone into the same cookie cutter.
When people are saying that starvation mode is a myth, they probably mean the myth that if you eat too few calories you CAN'T lose weight. You most certainly can, but whether it is healthy is a different story. The idea that if you cut calories too drastically your body will not allow you to lose any weight is obviously false.
I'm a woman, I believe in eating more than 1200 calories a day, so don't cram me in the same cookie cutter either. I've read through this entire thread, too, and there are a ton of ladies that are with me. There are forum groups that are all women that are eating more to weigh less, too.
I ate only what MFP recommended last fall, 1200 (even though my BMR is 1500) and lost weight, and would have many days where I was not hungry so I listened to my body and only ate 600-700 that day. That lasted a short time before I stopped losing weight. I gave up and packed 10 lbs back on of the 15 I had lost when I began eating without regard to my limit again. Now, I would rather lose slow and steady, not deprive myself, eat good choices and have a lifestyle. I haven't lost lbs on the scale, but my clothes are already fitting looser and I know that I am working with a number I can handle and feel healthy about.
*Edit to correct my stupid spelling 0 -
Are you slow? Perhaps your brain is in 'starvation mode' I am not "debating" anyone. Both of my responses were in answer to the original question and I would like to know how being in said supposed starvation mode is not an ED? If you're eating too few calories to the point that it's affecting the function of your body I would call that a "disorder" so yes if you're telling the girl she's starving herself then you are "insinuating" that her eating is disordered. As far as Goodwins Theory it is a theory not the ultimate word and perhaps makes it in to threads so often because people have such an attitude of think what i think or *kitten* off
You seem stressed.0 -
I wish they had come up with a term for metabolic slowdown that wasn't 'starvation mode'. That would've solved so many problems...0
-
Hi I was reading your post and congratulations on 85lbs! That is truly inspirational I have just started the 1200 calories a day and after one week I have lost 2 lbs. Not real happy with that but i am pleased I lost. I was wondering do you eat low carb? or does it matter so long as you keep it under 1200 a day? 0
-
Hi I was reading your post and congratulations on 85lbs! That is truly inspirational I have just started the 1200 calories a day and after one week I have lost 2 lbs. Not real happy with that but i am pleased I lost. I was wondering do you eat low carb? or does it matter so long as you keep it under 1200 a day?
Just make sure to avoid bananas. I read on here that they can kill you.0 -
I wish they had come up with a term for metabolic slowdown that wasn't 'starvation mode'. That would've solved so many problems...
Nothing springs to mind...0 -
So very true. You're wrong because you misspelt random word #137813!I wish they had come up with a term for metabolic slowdown that wasn't 'starvation mode'. That would've solved so many problems...
Nothing springs to mind...
Some people like to argue, they have nothing so they choose the wording.0 -
So very true. You're wrong because you misspelt random word #137813!I wish they had come up with a term for metabolic slowdown that wasn't 'starvation mode'. That would've solved so many problems...
Nothing springs to mind...
Some people like to argue, they have nothing so they choose the wording.
Obviously metabolic slowdown would be preferred, but people use the term starvation mode.
I think people would be more likely to accept the concept that your metabolism slows if you restrict your caloric intake too substantially if it weren't tied to a term like 'starvation mode'.0 -
I get to about 1200 cals and then when I log my afternoon exercise, I get the message about starvation mode. I recently realized that my metabolism has finally kicked in (because I go #2 several times a day and am finally losing weight)- it has been slow or dead for years. In my opinion, human beings are so very different that trying to find one rule to apply to them all is folly. When I was overweight and breastfeeding, I could not lose weight for anything. I tried to go on a diet to lose weight, and instead of losing weight, my body decided it was starving and I stopped making milk! I quickly ate a bunch of fattening food and high calorie things and some herbs to help get my milk back. I breastfed my son for a year and 3 months and never lost any weight. If I were in 'starvation mode' at this point I think my metabolism would slow down like it was before, and I would not be losing any weight.0
-
If you research the starvation mode theory, when they tested it people's metabolism slowed when they were at about 5% body fat and had been on extremely low calorie diets for quite a while. Even then they still lost weight just at a slightly slower (about 10% slower than before) rate.
If the starvation mode thing were really a huge problem, anorexics would never lose weight and people wouldn't die of starvation.
I think that the starvation mode is a scare tactic to discourage people from taking extreme methods to losing weight like starving themselves...
Exactly and none of here have this issue.
Also, not everyone has a large appetite OR eats processed foods. Eating whole foods like I do there is no way to get to 1600-1800 calories and I eat large amounts of fat and my calories still barely go over 1100 per day
The rate at which the metabolism is so minute that it is not even noticeable. I have spoken to several Metabolic Endocrinologist and all have said that "starvation mode" is nothing but a myth and a perpetuation of getting people to eat more, which keeps people fat.
uuuh NO! Come on, seriously...
2 eggs is 140
cooked in 1/2 tbsp butter or oil is 50-60
add in 1 small potato/slice of bread/or small bowl of oats = 100
a rather healthy and low bulk 1/2 cup of nuts is 320+ calories.
1 cup yogurt is another 150.
12 oz lean protein (total in a day) is another 300 minimum.
6-8 servings veggies is another 200 or so
2 tbsp oil is 240
looks like 1500 EASY CALORIES.0 -
Starvation mode is a myth.0
-
I have to admit I haven't read the entire thread, but this sounds a bit delusional... I don't care if you are vegan, paleo or whole foods only, eating 1600 calories a day should not be a problem.Eating whole foods like I do there is no way to get to 1600-1800 calories and I eat large amounts of fat and my calories still barely go over 1100 per day0 -
So very true. You're wrong because you misspelt random word #137813!I wish they had come up with a term for metabolic slowdown that wasn't 'starvation mode'. That would've solved so many problems...
Nothing springs to mind...
Some people like to argue, they have nothing so they choose the wording.
Obviously metabolic slowdown would be preferred, but people use the term starvation mode.
I think people would be more likely to accept the concept that your metabolism slows if you restrict your caloric intake too substantially if it weren't tied to a term like 'starvation mode'.
You see why I had to get out of this conversation last night! You'll THINK everyone participating has come to the general understanding that "starvation mode" means metabolic slowdown, and then someone will drop a bomb revealing they've been talking the whole time about someone's metabolism stopping and burning rainbows for energy! (figuratively- must qualify sarcasm before the conversation turns to debating rainbows..."Umm actually rainbows for energy is a myth...")0 -
Starvation mode is a myth.
Woo Hoo! Happy 30 something post!! - a new expert in the mix! Pay attention people!0 -
I guess what I really meant was that there was a much higher percentage of men in the pro high calorie group. Obviously there were some women as well. When I say "listen to your body" I mean on a long term basis as well as just day by day. It sounds like you felt better when you ate more than they recommended, so following your instincts and eating more in this case would count as listening to your body, but my point is that there are also some people who are better off eating fewer calories, and they should do what works best for them too. Many people have been posting responses that imply that EVERYONE needs to up their calories past the recommended amount to lose weight, or even that everyone needs to always eat more than 1200 calories a day to maintain or get to a healthy weight. There is a lot of variety in individual metabolisms. I don't think you can give a blanket statement that someone will be better off eating more than 1200 calories a day. It depends on the person. I am glad you are doing what works best for you.I just go with what my body tells me. If I'm hungry I eat and if I'm not then I don't make myself eat. If you are not feeling hungry then I doubt you'll be in "starvation mode". Also everybodys metabolism is different so if eating under 1200 works for you and you're losing weight then I don't see any problems. I f you hit a plateau or start suffering ill effects then maybe up the intake. People on here are so hardcore about starvation mode. Anyways bottom line just do what works for you and as always good luck on your weight loss journey
This is really the best solution. People need to listen to their bodies more often. I've noticed that most of the people who are outspoken against eating 1200 calories a day are men, for whom 1200 calories would almost certainly be too little. But for many women, it is a perfectly acceptable amount of calories that leaves us feeling satisfied. You have to listen to your own body, and if you're feeling low energy and run down you could very well be eating too few calories. If you're feeling great and energetic, and maintaining or moving towards a healthy weight, the number of calories you are eating is working for you whether it is 1200 or 2200. Don't try to cram everyone into the same cookie cutter.
When people are saying that starvation mode is a myth, they probably mean the myth that if you eat too few calories you CAN'T lose weight. You most certainly can, but whether it is healthy is a different story. The idea that if you cut calories too drastically your body will not allow you to lose any weight is obviously false.
I'm a woman, I believe in eating more than 1200 calories a day, so don't cram me in the same cookie cutter either. I've read through this entire thread, too, and there are a ton of ladies that are with me. There are forum groups that are all women that are eating more to weigh less, too.
I ate only what MFP recommended last fall, 1200 (even though my BMR is 1500) and lost weight, and would have many days where I was not hungry so I listened to my body and only ate 600-700 that day. That lasted a short time before I stopped losing weight. I gave up and packed 10 lbs back on of the 15 I had lost when I began eating without regard to my limit again. Now, I would rather lose slow and steady, not deprive myself, eat good choices and have a lifestyle. I haven't lost lbs on the scale, but my clothes are already fitting looser and I know that I am working with a number I can handle and feel healthy about.
*Edit to correct my stupid spelling0 -
I think people would be more likely to accept the concept that your metabolism slows if you restrict your caloric intake too substantially if it weren't tied to a term like 'starvation mode'.
Indeed. I don't think anyone argues that the metabolism doesn't slow down - how would they actually know - but when there's a leap from that statement to "and therefore you can't lose any weight" or "so your body holds on to everything" we're into myth territory again.0 -
Say what you like about the term starvation mode but here are the facts:
Your body has a basic metabolic rate (BMR) - this is the number of calories your body/organs need to function each day if you were just to lie in bed all day. This number for most people is around 1,200 calories.
You have a TDEE rate - this is your total daily expendature rate. So basically this is your BMR above, plus whatever you burn daily either just by getting out of bed right up to any exercise. For most women their TDEE, before exercise, is 1,800-2,000.
If your body gets less then it's BMR then it starts to burn further stores. This is obvious and yes of course you will lose wieght. BUT the body knows it is not getting enough to function normally and so the metabolism gets messed up as it's learning to cope with less calories (ie. what it would be like if it had limited access to food, and this is why people call it starvation mode).
Now the danger with eating less than your BRM is that because the body is trying to cope and survive, once you re-increase your calories the body will go though a "hoarding" phase as it will try to re-store it's extra supplies in case it goes back into "Starvation mode" again. So weight regain occurs more often than not. This too though will re-normalise as the body learns that the food will not be taken away again and that it can live off 1,200.
Once it gets comfortable again with 1,200 it will start to recognise 1,200 as it's basic BMR again and will lose at that rate because it knows it is less than your TDEE.
In short - eating 1,200 calories causes a deficit and you lose weight, but it maintains your BMR and metabolic slow down takes a long time to set in.
Eating less than your BRM creates a bigger deficit and you will lose weight but you are much more likely to regain that back once you re-increase your calories once you hit your goal and want to stabilise. And of course, at some point you have to begin to eat a TDEE again otherwise you have an eating disorder. Reaching a goal and staying there is the goal for us! Not wasting into nothing and damaging organs etc.
I hope this clears things up a little.
Starvation mode is a bit of a scare terms but it's badly used as a blanket term to explain what I just wrote.
Also remember the figures above are you NET calories. If you eat 1,200 and burn 400 exercising you've only given the body 800 to work with. You need to eat back those 400.
I am really glad I asked this question because I am learning so much! I do research online, but it's nice to hear some advice that actually makes sense. Thank you for your post 0 -
[/quote]
[/quote]0 -
I think people would be more likely to accept the concept that your metabolism slows if you restrict your caloric intake too substantially if it weren't tied to a term like 'starvation mode'.
Indeed. I don't think anyone argues that the metabolism doesn't slow down - how would they actually know - but when there's a leap from that statement to "and therefore you can't lose any weight" or "so your body holds on to everything" we're into myth territory again.
A fair point, but that's just misinformation on the other end.
What 'your body holds onto everything' actually means is 'As the result of severe calorie restriction, TDEE decreases non-linearly, either through direct slowing of the body's metabolism, an increasingly more sedentary nature, or some combination of the two. This makes weight loss more difficult as a smaller and smaller total daily calorie intake will be required to generate the same caloric deficit needed for said weight loss.'0 -
Are you slow? Perhaps your brain is in 'starvation mode' I am not "debating" anyone. Both of my responses were in answer to the original question and I would like to know how being in said supposed starvation mode is not an ED? If you're eating too few calories to the point that it's affecting the function of your body I would call that a "disorder" so yes if you're telling the girl she's starving herself then you are "insinuating" that her eating is disordered. As far as Goodwins Theory it is a theory not the ultimate word and perhaps makes it in to threads so often because people have such an attitude of think what i think or *kitten* offScrew this thread. Some of you people are ridiculous. Yes you can starve yourself if you actively try. Nobody's "accidentally" in starvation mode. She said she doesn't feel hungry not because she has daily been depriving herself but because that's just where she's at. Then some of you start throwing around "starvation mode" like she's got an ED or something. None of you know her metabolism, health etc so let her eat what she's comfortable at and take down your nazi attitude a bit
Obviously you had not noticed that the thread had evolved a bit from the OPs original question. The OP was the one that was concerned about starvation mode and specifically asked the question. What ensued was a debate between other people, including you. I have not seen anyone even insinuating that the OP has an ED.
And have you ever heard of Goodwin's Law?
Wow - nice come back - personal insults - very mature and really supports the validity of your post.
And I know your response was in relation to the OP - which is why I responded as I did.0 -
Starvation mode is a myth.
Woo Hoo! Happy 30 something post!! - a new expert in the mix! Pay attention people!
There's a few of those here.0 -
Are you slow? Perhaps your brain is in 'starvation mode' I am not "debating" anyone. Both of my responses were in answer to the original question and I would like to know how being in said supposed starvation mode is not an ED? If you're eating too few calories to the point that it's affecting the function of your body I would call that a "disorder" so yes if you're telling the girl she's starving herself then you are "insinuating" that her eating is disordered. As far as Goodwins Theory it is a theory not the ultimate word and perhaps makes it in to threads so often because people have such an attitude of think what i think or *kitten* off
You seem stressed.
I agree, how embarrassingly uncontrolled.0 -
What 'your body holds onto everything' actually means is 'As the result of severe calorie restriction, TDEE decreases non-linearly, either through direct slowing of the body's metabolism, an increasingly more sedentary nature, or some combination of the two. This makes weight loss more difficult as a smaller and smaller total daily calorie intake will be required to generate the same caloric deficit needed for said weight loss.'
That's why it's always better to say what is meant, rather than 'your body holds onto everything' which is clearly nonsense in the literal sense and is picked up by people without the background as a fact.0 -
And have you ever heard of Goodwin's Law?
Nope. Is it like Godwin's Law ?0 -
That's why it's always better to say what is meant, rather than 'your body holds onto everything' which is clearly nonsense in the literal sense and is picked up by people without the background as a fact.
I'm not trying to defend misinformation on either end of the spectrum; rather I'm speculating that the nickname given to this bodily function has caused a LOT of undue miscommunication in general.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions