140lb, 5, 3 doing 1000 calorie diet .....

If you are tall that could be little enough to damage your metabolism over time, but otherwise it's unlikely you'll go into starvation mode on 1000 calories at your age, especially if you are not exercising. At 20 yo you should naturally have a healthy metabolism.

If you are hungry or tired all the time on 1000, then eat more. 100-200 calories more isn't really going to slow your weight loss anyway. And if you exercise, then also eat more.

1000 calories might be to low. I recommend the group Eat more to weigh less: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/3817-eat-more-to-weigh-less
Take a look at the group and also there's a video with Lucia from eat more to weigh less who can explain it better than me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYi9xjIRvbY&feature=plcp

this

I second this.

Eating 1000 calories is definitely starvation mode. Even 1200 calories may be considered starvation mode. I was brainwashed into thinking 1200 calories was what I should be eating. WRONG! Go to this website and input your data. It will tell you your total daily energy expenditure (TEE). Make sure you eat 15% LESS of that number.

http://www.health-calc.com/diet/energy-expenditure-advanced

If your body is in starvation mode, it will hold on to every ounce of weight you consume, making it extremely difficult to lose weight. Trust me, I have been there.

Starvation mode refers to a slowing of metabolism, not a number of calories. Starvation mode can be caused by eating too few calories, but there is no magic number to cause it. It depends on a lot of things such as age, gender, activity level, genetics, height, weight.

Agreed. Personally I think the word "starvation" is overloaded here on this forum...

Since someone started the starvation mode scare I suggest doing some research on your own and decide what is healthiest and best choice. THis was copied and paste from a disucssion in this forum http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/81391-starvation-mode-myths-and-science.

First, a definition. Starvation mode does not mean going without food. It means that you cut your caloric intake to less than what the body would normally burn in the course of a day. I have seen so many posts where people offer advice and tell people they need to eat more to lose weight because they are starving their bodies. The idea postulated is that eating too few calories will reduce a person’s metabolism to such an extent that the person will gain weight instead of losing.

Now, a look at one of the classic scientific studies on starvation. Probably the most famous study done was conducted after WWII by researchers at the University of Minnesota. Starvation was widespread throughout Europe during the war and scientists were trying to figure out how to re-feed people suffering from starvation and determine the long-term effects. (Remember, tens of thousands of people died after liberation from concentration camps not only from disease but from the reintroduction of food that their bodies were no longer capable of digesting.) Scientists recruited 36 young healthy men to participate in a yearlong study divided into several phases: a 12-week normal control period, a 24-week starvation phase where calories were so dramatically reduced that participants lost approximately 25% of body weight; and, finally, a recovery phase to renourish participants. Results of the study were published in the two-volume, Biology of Human Starvation (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis, 1950). See more information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment.

So, what did the results of the study find? First, all participants lost weight. Starvation mode does not result in your body hanging onto extra fat or calories in an effort to “preserve” your body. But, it’s more complicated than just losing weight. All of the participants also experienced a drop in their metabolic rates – approximately 40% below baseline. Now, you will see many posters here that will argue that you will start losing muscle and not fat within a few days of going into so-called “starvation mode.” Yet, the research shows that participants lost both. In fact, at no point did they stop losing fat until they hit a rate of approximately 5% body fat near the end of the study.

Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits… But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.

But, keep in mind that apart from weight loss, semi-starvation has other not-so-cool effects on your mind and body. The other physical effects from the Minnesota study on semi-starvation included a significant drop in physical endurance, reduction in strength of about 10%, and sluggish reflexes. Those that were the most fit initially showed the greatest deterioration. In addition, heart volume shrank about 20%, pulses slowed and their body temperatures dropped. Concentration and judgment became impaired. Sexual function was reduced and all lost interest in sex. They had every physical indication of accelerated aging. But keep in mind, this was a year-long study, not something that happened in a just a few days or two weeks of eating restricted calories.

The more dramatic effects of semi-starvation from the Minnesota study were psychological, similar to what can be observed in anorexic patients. The men became nervous, anxious, apathetic, withdrawn, impatient, self-critical, emotional and depressed. A few even mutilated themselves, one chopping off three fingers in stress. They became obsessed with food, thinking, talking and reading about it constantly; developed weird eating rituals; hoarding, etc.

Now, let’s look at another aspect. The folks at Cambridge University in England did a study to determine the different effects starvation had on lean people versus obese people. The study can be found here: http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid0 7e11.htm. Let’s just cut to the chase with this study.

Does starvation mode slow down the metabolism? No and Yes.

In the first 2 days of starvation, there is a small absolute increase in basic metabolic rate relative to values obtained from overnight fasting. Overnight fasting is what every one of us does during our sleeping hours. So it is not true that going below recommended calories for one day is going to slow down your metabolism -- quite the contrary, it may speed it up just a little. Of course, this is just limited to the first few days. After that, studies in fact support that “starvation mode” slows down metabolism.

Does Starvation mode cause our bodies to catabilize (devour our muscles and other lean mass)? Yes and No.

Lean individuals lost great amounts of fat-free, lean tissue during starvation, but obese individuals lost much more fat tissue. The loss of lean mass is not as critical to the obese person simply because an obese person has more lean mass than a person of the same age and height but normal weight. Here we get to a basic idea that makes sense – fat storage – the same way animals build up bulk to rely on during the winter, obese people have fat stores they can use (to a limited extent) in times of need. This means that the effects of a semi-starvation diet upon a normal weight individual are of course much more devastating than the effects on someone who is obese.

Finally, some conclusions. Does all this mean I should reduce my caloric intake below the minimum recommended as an effective way to lose weight? If you think the answer is yes, then you haven’t carefully read everything here, so I will spell it out:

Let’s start by clearing up that major myth I see repeated over and over again in the forums: that a single day or even a few days of extreme caloric restrictions forces your body into starvation mode, significantly reducing your metabolism and causing you to lose muscles. Not true. You may, in fact, lose weight in the short term. Your body does not go into starvation mode after a few days of extreme calorie restricted eating.

However, let’s look again at the Minnesota study for further compelling evidence why semi-starvation is not a good idea for long-term weight loss. In the latter half of the Minnesota Starvation Study the men were allowed to eat ad libitum again. Researchers found they had insatiable appetites, yet never felt full, these effects continued for months afterwards. Semi-starvation diets don’t work long-term for this simple reason – under ordinary pressures, when eating resumes, people put the weight back on and oftentimes, gain more.

And let’s not forget the other physical and psychological effects mentioned earlier. Any of those sound appealing to you? Reduced concentration or sexual function anyone? The Cambridge study also looked at several deaths from people who undertook extreme starvation diets, particularly those that did not create a good nutritional balance in the calories that were consumed.

Bottom line, you should do adequate research and dietary analysis to ensure you are getting the best nutrition you can for your calories.

I will point out that for you to get into starvation mode according to this study you body fat percentage has to be less than 5 percent that probably is maybe 1 percent or less of the ppl on this site. (Just a rought estimate)

Ok I took a slightly different approach, I didn't set a particular goal in a particular time but when I decided to participate in a health challenge I simply replaced most of the bad things in my diet with healthier ones, worked out regularly 45 min daily (you can do it all at once or in spurts) & started drinking only water in massive amounts. My starting weight was 160 & in 8 weeks (of total consistency) I was 133. I did consult a nutritionist and got a personal trainer to advise me as well. Like I said I did not calorie count but I have started to recently since my job restricts my movent and I have climbed back up to 146 now.

If person x does not count cals and wakes up and eats 2 slices toast and a handful of nuts, for lunch a couple boiled eggs and some fruit on the run, has a candy bar in the afternoon and a cooked dinner of a reasonable size, rehydrates on water black coffee/tea it would be around 1000 cals. Plenty of people do this...and stay alive. They may eat more some days (we call them spike or off days) normal people call it being normal.

People talk like she will die eating it for a little while. There is a whole world where people do not count, are under 1000 and live but if tthose who eat amd eat saw a homeless person who was late for the soup line how many would worry abput his macros, or a single mom who feeds her kid instead of herself - she won't die. We are spoiled and we act it. There is a difference between starving and starvation mode.

Well said.

Here's the deal. If you were in a coma, you would have a feeding tube that would supply you with 1200 calories worth of food. Why 1200 calories? That is because that is what your body needs in order to survive while you are in a coma.

That's not necessarily true. If one were in a coma, their caloric needs would be individually determined. Certainly not everyone would get 1200 calories, and not even all women. Some would get more, some might get less, based on size, age, etc. Most women would get more, as they don't normally put coma patients on a calories deficit and the BMR of many women is > 1200.

1200 is just the average number of calories the average woman needs to lose weight safely. But not everyone is average.

Also, NEVER allow yourself to get hungry! When you feel hungry your mind and body start working against you. Eat every couple of hours, even if it is a 50 calorie cheese string! Your body needs to have something in your stomach all the time...

What?? Where did you hear that? That might be a personal preference but it's certainly not necessary.

2 slices toast - 140 cals (white generic bread)
1tbsp can't believe it's not butter - 70 cals
Raisin yogurt trail mix (used because it's what I eat) - 150 cals

Breakfast: 360 cals

2 hard boiled eggs plain - roughly 150 cals
1 cup grapes - around 100 cals Or banana - around 110 cals Or apple - less than both of these options.

Lunch in a hurry - 250 cals
(BTW I survive on this lunch - I have no lunch break at work and may only eat while feeding the people that cannot feed themselves - 6 people in a 30 minute timeframe, and most the time the people who can feed themselves steal my grapes)

Snickers - 280

Afternoon snack - 280 cals

Note - this doesn't have to be snickers. If you didn't have the snickers you could eat quite a few more items and feel even more full - but I said candy bar and have written the one that I haven't eaten in 2 years!)

Italian sausage - 250 cals -prepared on an indoor grill sprayed with non fat cooking spray)
2 cups salad - 50 cals (If that)
Fat free salad dressing 1 tbsp - 45 cals
Small side of those pasta side (lipton things) - 70 cals

Dinner - 415 cals (This TO ME is a reasonable size meal. It is what I might eat - my husband would have at least 500 cals in the italian sausage, my kid would have a little less than me but for 415 cals there are quite a few reasonably size meals)

Coffee - black 0 cals
Tea - black 0 cals. With fat free milk - 5-10 cals.
Water - 0 cals

Drinks - 5-10 cals.


Days cals 1035 (go walk around the block, burn 35 cals - day done!)

It doesn't meet macros, it's not a healthy day but it is around 1000 cals and it would fill me up. For the record - this is not MY day - I eat more than mentioned here and I eat healthier 90% of the time but you asked for help to work those numbers out and I used MFP database.

Lol I had said eggs and fruit so gave cals.

And peopl here eat exercize cals back so net cals would make room for a bigger lunch.

And you'd be hungry because you normally eat more but in no way would you starve.goes to show how spoiled we all are foodwise. Some people woul be thrilled to get all that food, but people here turn their noses up like the spoiled calorie brats we are.

I pretty much feel like I wrote this post. I just turned 21, I am a student, Im 138 lbs, 5'1". Starting weight 172. 1000 is low for me, but I workout all the time. THe past few days have been a **** show for me eating wise, but I usually eat around 1200. People give you alot of **** for eating low cal. Sometimes its justified and sometimes its not. I understand why you would want to eat 1000 but in your case I dont thing you should. Here is why. I also yoyo dietied and ****ed up my metabolism starting in 5th grade. In order to get metabolism back on track you should eat more (maybe even 1300) for a few weeks. That will make weight loss easer in the long run. And I know you think you dont have time to work out. God knows I get that but I have found that when I work out I am way more productive in my work. If you get on the treadmill for 30 mins a day (not that long at all! ) you can start to get into good shape. Honestly this could only be good for you. There are so many studies that show students who exercise and eat healthy and get enough sleep are better students. Since I started MFP my grades have improved.

Before I started using MFP I was only eating around 1000 cals a day and my weight loss was very sluggish and so was I! I started MFP and upped my cals to 1200 and just do light walks for excercise...my weight loss has picked back up and I feel great!

You should be scratching your head. Haha. Editing to hide my bad math skills

Edit - oh it won't let me edit. Haha.
Ok here. Take italian sausage and eat 0.75. Eat m&m pretzels instead of snickers. Eat 3/4 of grapes. And anyhow. And skip the pasta side.

Oh dear. My point was it can be done and has been done but I screwed up with math at some point. I have done 1000 cals (and I let MFP add it up, not me) and been fine. I don't do it every day and I wouldn't love it - but I wouldn't be weak and unmotivated.

Edit again - awkward as I realize I posted more than I ate today.

Nah, I had a brain fart. Maybe it's my calorie deficit.