stavation mode is this true

I have written several blogs about this topic. Even a google search will bring them up. Less than 1k a day is very dangerous, especially if you are eating that and exercising on top without eating exercise calories back. Even gastric bypass patients eat more than 1k a day, and they have a regimine of vitamin therapies to counteract any deficiencies from their food.

It is almost impossible to get the nutrients, vitamins, and minerals you need to have your body work efficiently on that low of a food intake.

Please speak with your doctor about the appropriate calorie levels for you, deficiencies, and how to refeed back to a normal calorie intake.

This may be true... but that still doesnt make it healthy! My sister had lap band surgery several years back, and while the weight loss did happen until recently ( she still has a little more she would like to loose) she is loosing her hair, she has lost most of her muscle mass, and she is chronically tired. That does not sound like a way of life to ME!

Here's my thoughts about starvation mode...I dont know if it exists or not, dont really care to be honest! i know that when I started at the pitiful 1200 cals that MFP set for me... I lost for a bit- and COMPLETLEY stopped loosing anything. I was hungry all the time, very ill ( like bad mood), and felt so deprived all the time... I obsessed thinking about food!

Then, I finally starting reading up and making friends with people that had similar goals and had been sucessful...Turns out...all of them were eating a heck of a lot more than me...I upped my cals- I eat between 1400-2000 cals now ( i vary it up on purpose by eating more some days and less some) I am no longer exhausted... I feel better about my self..and all of my cravings have gone away.... and the best part... I am down 18 pounds since starting in March. So I am not sure which is the correct approach, but I sure do prefer myself EATING...my 2 cents!

Most gastric bypass patients are advised to stay around 700-800 in the weight loss periods. Most also won't go over 1000 til maintenance

Bump for later. Is is possible some people don't need 1200 calories a day? Can a 56 year old still be healthy eating less calories than a 22 year old? I always hear in the forums that you have to eat at least 1200 calories a day or it isn't healthy. I've been generally eating 900-1000 calories since 10.1.2011. My skin looks healthy. My hair isn't falling out. I'm not dizzy or lightheaded. I don't feel hungry, ever. Am I killing my body?

Bump for later. Is is possible some people don't need 1200 calories a day? Can a 56 year old still be healthy eating less calories than a 22 year old? I always hear in the forums that you have to eat at least 1200 calories a day or it isn't healthy. I've been generally eating 900-1000 calories since 10.1.2011. My skin looks healthy. My hair isn't falling out. I'm not dizzy or lightheaded. I don't feel hungry, ever. Am I killing my body?

I'm wondering the same thing...My Dr. says I'm not but from reading all these posts I'm wondering...

Oh, and I don't believe that a calorie is a calorie. It's relevant, sure, but two diets of the same calories but different composition will not yield the same results. I actually believe that the *type* of food we eat is relevant to our body weight and composition goals, which I suppose is heresy in the MFP world.

But I'm sure people could pick apart my diary and explain how my 3k/day with almost no weight gain (despite that being the goal) can be explained with a simple calories in/out formula. (And you window peekers feel free...my diary is wide open to the general public...because I don't get enough ridicule from people IRL that I encourage it online as well.)

For the most part, I try not to discuss this, because the general audience here has enough trouble with basic nutrition (I realize that saying that makes me sound like a jerk, and I am ok with that :P). I generally say that 90% of diet is explained by calories in - calories out (assuming adequate protein intake) . HOWEVER, eating whole foods vs. processed foods does have a significant caloric advantage in terms of thermic effect of food (probably around 10%). Also, protein has a net caloric value of 3.2 cals/g due to TEF as well. These factors CAN make a very substantial different over time.

E.g. Two 3000 cal/day diets:
Diet 1: 1500 cals fat, 1500 cals processed carbs: Net cals with TEF would be around 2950.
Diet 1: 1000 cals protein, 500 cals fat, 1500 cals whole grains/fruit: Net cals with TEF would be around 2600. That is a 350 calorie/day different, or around 35 pounds a year.

I don't recommend worrying about this until at least some semblance of control has been asserted over diet and exercise, but for people who are looking to optimize their diet, this can be significant.

The plateau usually happens because after someone loses thirty pounds on a certain diet and exercise regime they don't realize that 170 pound YOU needs to eat less than 200 pound YOU because 170 pound YOU's basal metabolic rate is much less, meaning you burn many less calories just sitting in your chair at work every day. Exercise is the same way, when a 200 pound person does an hour of running it burns way more than a 170 pound person burns doing the same thing. You've got to decrease your intake and increase your exercise very slowly as you go.

Do not listen to all the mumbo-jumbo about your brain eating your body for calories, and cheating every four days on your diet, its insane and not supported by science.