Starvation Mode

Are you set to lose 2lb/week? If so, that means that MFP has subtracted 1000 calories off of your TDEE. If TDEE minus 1000 calories came out to less than 1200, it enforces a mandatory minimum of 1200. SO, If you chose sedentary, your multiplier is 1.2, so
1590 x 1.2 = 1908 (TDEE)
1908-1000 = 908 (calorie limit to lose 2 lb/week)
908 is rounded to 1200 because of minimum limit.

Based on that, you can see that 2 lb/week is too high of a weekly weight loss goal for you. Consider a lower weekly goal, which will be more comfortable, and much more likely to maintain long term.

Thanks for your reply. I'm really sorry, but I'm even more confused now. I think there's just something here I'm not getting or getting stuck on or something. Where do these numbers come from? What formula is the right one?

I'm unclear as to whether this makes a difference, but I'm not at all inactive or sedentary - I do work in front of a computer, but I exercise (yoga nearly daily on my breaks, Zumba classes, some strength/weight training 2-3 times a week, hiking/walking briskly for an hour 4-6x/week) almost every day. Since I started tracking my calories with MFP, I've noticed some days I HAVE to consume 2200+ calories just to net 1200 calories for the day. I was already vegetarian/ mostly vegan; the only real dietary changes I've made to cut back on calories is that I'm no longer drinking soda - and I was drinking half a liter or more a few times a week before - also stopped having dessert with every meal and cut back on butter and baked sweets. I haven't noticed any difference in my energy levels; I'm just hungry a lot more the closer my net calories get to 1200. I am consistently losing 1-3 lbs a week, though.

I really just want to know how many calories I should be netting to lose weight in a healthy way, just so I have some kind of guideline, and I'm getting the feeling the MFP numbers aren't right for me. So how do people figure it out?

I'm just hungry a lot more the closer my net calories get to 1200.

It is used as a scare tactic. Nothing more. I don't even bother completing my daily log as it gives me the annoying message every time. If starvation mode as it is used on this board existed then you are correct, gastric bypass would not work and anorexics would not be under weight. I am not making fun of anyone, especially those with and ED. I'm saying that if starvation mode worked as "advertised" then it would not be an issue.

BTW - In 6 months I have only twice consumed more than 1,200 calories and I have lost over 85lbs, lost almost no muscle mass, and increased me HDL (good cholesterol). This calorie amount was recommend by both my MD and nutritionist who said that women can lose weight perfectly healthy on 1,200 per day. I defer to their judgement over a website.

starvation mode for me its a huge myth.... Ok, lets accept the fact that eating 500 calories everyday would be dangerous for your body, cause you are not getting enough nutrients/protein/vitamins/calcium etc...
But no way you would enter a starvation mode, or, explain anorexia to me, those girls barely eat 500 cal a day, and they keep losing weight.
I normally eat 900-1100 a day (ive never gone over my daily 1200), and look, 37 lbs less!.. And Im never hungry, i feel satified with what I eat, nothing in this world would change my mind about it. Maybe if i was eating the 900-1100 and i was with the 200 lbs i had before, i would believe it, but not when im a few pounds away from the 150s.

So again , that starvation mode is BS for me.. IMO

OKAY heres a scare tactic for you. starvation mode makes your hair fall out, makes your periods stop, makes your nails chip, your skin turn gaunt and yellow and your breath to STINK. what the hell is wrong with nourishing yourself? maybe THATS the reason you cant seem to keep the weight off.



thats me eating 600-800 cals a day, about 3 months into my sickness. starvation mode is REAL. and do NOT educate people on matters that you know very little about. it doesnt happen over night, of course, BUT if you religiously eat way less than 1,200 cals a day there are going to be inevitable health complications. that simply is NOT ENOUGH calories to sustain an active lifestyle! CMON GUYS LETS BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES HERE!

I can lose weight eating 1900 calories a day, ensure that I get enough micronutrients through food, go out and enjoy myself and have a meal/glass of wine etc, get enough energy to strength train, get enough protein and fats (yes, you need fats too), not worry about gaining when I hit my target and go to maintanance.

Or, I can eat less than 1000 calories a day, not get enough micronutrients through food, never go out for a meal, have declining energy levels, not get enough protein or fats and gain when I try to eat more when I have hit my target and run the risk of having a suppressed .metabolism.

Now, I can lose weight on both (I am currently losing at 1900) - but I know which one I prefer. So whether you believe in starvation mode or not, my question is....why would you pick the latter?

I get that this is a cost/benefit decision. If someone is very overweight, then the cost/benefit is different than someone who has 5, 10, 20lbs to lose.

Also, there are so many posts from folks under 1200 saying that 'it works for me' or 'I have lost no muscle mass' - how do they know? - have they had their metabolism tested and a DEXA scan before and after?