The Starvation Myth

You people are confusing the hell out of me........mfp needs a panel of nutritionists to jump in here and unscramble my brains.
I guess the only real way to loose is trial and error. If one don't work do the other.

eat less, move more generally works :laugh:

weight watchers does the same thing. You can earn points to eat more, thru exercise. That part of it did not work for me.

I think the problem everyone is missing about eating back calories is that MFP uses your BMR and minus deficate calories off that. When trully your deficate should be subtracted from your Total Daily Energy Expendenture (TDEE) calories. So because MFP uses BMR your need to eat your calories back from exercise because you are already way under on calories needed before you even started exercising.

BMR calories are like others said is the approx. minimum your body needs to function doing absolutlly nothing all day.

TDEE is your BMR multiplied by your normal activity level per day.

Multiplier = My Description or Alternative Description

1.2 = Desk job with little exercise or Little to no exercise
1.375 = 1-3 hrs/wk of light exercise or Light exercise (1–3 days per week)
1.55 = 3-5 hrs/wk of moderate exercise or Moderate exercise (3–5 days per week)
1.725 = 5-6 hrs/wk of strenuous exercise or Heavy exercise (6–7 days per week)
1.9 = 7-21 hrs/wk of strenuous exercise/work or Very heavy exercise (twice per day, extra heavy workouts)

My current BMR is 2280 cal/day
My current TDEE is 2736 cal/day
if I want to loss weight of 2 lbs/week my calories based on my TDEE would only be 1736 cal/day but my body needs a minimum 2280 cal/day to function so trully my my healthy cal/day should not go under 2280 cal. Also if I where to exercise My calories eaten should always be my bmr plus my exercise calories to insure that my organs and muscles have enough energy to fuction.

MFP took my BMR of 2280 cal/day and minused 1000 cal/day (2lbs/week) making my goal 1280 cal/day. now if I where to do 1280 calories of work out in 1 day it would put me at 0 cal/day which means I could of just not even eaten that day and acheived the same goal hense why it is a absolute must to eat your exercise calories back.

good site to calculate your BMR, TDEE and daily calorie goal is: http://scoobysworkshop.com/accurate-calorie-calculator/

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but a lot of people say they never heard of eating back exercise before.

Weight Watchers does this. When I was on their plan, I could earn extra points through exercise. Same concept,

In case I haven't posted it yet on this page, WW 'eating back' is optional and maxes at half your exercise calories. It's a little different from MFP's "eat ALL your exercise calories or risk starvation mode".

National Institute of Health--


Food Intake and Starvation Induce Metabolic Changes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22414/

Did you post this as part of the discussion about what brains use for fuel or about starvation? I think they're talking about starvation effects from 0 intake in this article, aren't they?

If you can find something about how it is okay to eat below 1200 calories for an extended period of time in a scholarly research journal and prove me wrong than I will admit defeat. But I am pretty sure I will not. I am in the exercise science industry and I do not believe that it is healthy in any way shape or form to be eating that little for an extended period of time.

You may have to define "extended period of time". Most clinical studies of weight loss in overweight or obese people use diets below 1200 calories, for quick and significant effect. It's worth saying that 1200 calories appears to be "an American thing" and isn't a level given any significance in the UK's health service (for example). I hadn't met it until I came on here.

http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf - 8 weeks at 600 calories/day
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9226488 - 2 months at 420 cals/day
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7595165 - 12 weeks ar 330 cals/day
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20379151 - 6 weeks at 800 cals/day
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19592223 - 12 weeks at either 450 or 800 cals/day
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18198305 - 890 cals/day until 15% of initial weight lost (3 months)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19258409 - 800 calories until BMI < 25 (~158 ± 70 days)

Come on people the word starvation mode is taken way out of context around here... No one is comparing anything to starving kids in Africa.... The way most use this term is that if you run to high of a caloric deficit your bodies metabolism slows to a crawl and your weightloss stalls... So in essence your body tries to protect itself aka starvation mode.... Then there is the other side "Eating more to lose weight" this comes in to play when you consume those calories burned during exercise. You have to fuel your body for the workouts you ask of it to do... It is as simple as that...

Read the article, though: your metabolism *slows down*, doesn't stop. You will incrementally lose weight slower, but you will still be losing weight at a rapid pace. You don't stop losing weight from fat until you are under 10% bf. and hardly anybody on this forum applies to that.

Note: I'm not saying that eating more than 1200 calories is BAD for you or will make it hard to lose weight (on a case-by-case basis, of course), I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with 1000-1200 calories a day for most people. It's just hard and takes some adjusting. You won't stop losing weight if you eat 1200 cals. You won't gain weight if you eat 1200 cals. And it is not an automatic "well you will lose muscle, then", either.

Hate to burst your bubble but after 37 months of being in a caloric deficit and losing 310 lbs, thru diet and exercise and trial and error coming from not being able to stand and support my own weight to where I am today I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my body did shut down, did stop losing weight and did actually start retaining calories I was putting in causing me to completely stall out because of those high calorie deficits.... After I figured it out everything changed... Now I eat 3200-3400 calories a day presently to lose 1/2 lb. a week.... I had a BMI of 74+ and after 310 lbs. lost I still have a BMI of 33% (still obese by their standards)

Not by mine:



So I respectfully have to disagree..........

Wow, that's amazing. Way to go!

Bump, great post!

So what you are really saying is cutting 1000 cals from your daily intake helps you lose .83-1.25lbs a week.
I have people losing that eating closer to 2k a day.

With how much exercise ?

I guess there are many many methods out there for workout. I have to agree with the MFP system though. I am 25, weight 220ish (5'8"). I think that eating back the calories is a good method. Notice, though, that the guidelines for fat, sodium, sugar, etc are all still considerably lower, and are not completely proportionate to the caloric addition.
I am no expert by any means of the word. I am learning about my body, but I can say that I have been following the plan on here for a week, and have already lost 4 pounds healthily. I just work out at a pace of about 1000-1500 calories a day. If I were to keep the same workout routine, and eat pizza all day, My body would not be able to sustain because of the lack of nutrients, and chances are I will not lose a pound. As far as the calories go....hey, your car needs more gas when you floor it on the freeway, as opposed to a sunday stroll down the avenue. I think that is where the theory of "eating back the calories" comes from. To me, thats logical. That is how I feel.

I don't know about starvation mode but I do know that I have lost SOOO much more weight eating a healthy amount rather than back when I used to try to starve myself. I think it has more to do with the fact that I have more energy and can go harder during workouts. On top of that, I LIKE eating so screw eating very little haha.

I don't agree with eating back calories from exercise But I your response haha

So what you are really saying is cutting 1000 cals from your daily intake helps you lose .83-1.25lbs a week.
I have people losing that eating closer to 2k a day.

With how much exercise ?

Whose daily intake? Mine? Oh, is Dan getting personal, assuming I'm saying I eat at 1000 calorie deficits every day therefore if I don't lose 2 lbs/week, science is wrong and he's right? Despite that he has no clue of my intake level or weight or goals?

And the fact that no one can provide published evidence to refute the WW scientists is irrelevant because I lose a pound a week?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Not to mention, it is said that if you work out in the morning, whatever you consume thorughout that day is processed faster. Your body speeds up its activity, and uses more calories doing it. So instead of only burning 5 calories a half hour answering phones, you may burn 9 (just an example). Am I right?

No.

Quoted from the WW article.

However, if an individual actually reduces their intake to 500 calories, the weight loss would not likely be a steady 3 pounds per week because of the reduced metabolic rate. It would likely be around 2¼ to 2½ pounds. This "lower than expected" rate of weight loss is a lot different than "no" weight loss as the "starvation mode" notion proposes.

They are saying there is some sort of a slowing of weightloss. This is all based off a 2000 calorie diet. TDEE says that if someone has a 2000 a day the could be female 5' 4", weigh 150 age 25 and do light exercise. That would keep your current weight. If you're over that weight these numbers aren't for you.

It is unclear as to whether the relationship between reduced caloric intake and a lower metabolism follows a straight path or becomes more pronounced the greater the caloric reduction. Some studies have found no significant reduction in metabolism until the caloric restriction is quite large (e.g. 800 calories or less per day).2 Others suggest a linear relationship with small reductions in metabolism accompanying small reductions in caloric restriction, with the gap increasing as the caloric deficit is enlarged.

They are saying here that they don't know the relationship, but then go to say others suggest small reductions in metabolism accompaning the reductions in calorie deficit. The calories reduce so does the metabolism.

This article isn't really helping anything.

I set my TDEE to my goal calories. I eat when Im hungry. I exercise like crazy. Try to stay 500-800 below my calories.

Do you mean you set your goal calories to your TDEE?

In which case, TDEE being defined as what you burn daily with all activity, you would maintain.

Do you mean you set your goal to your non-exercise TDEE?

And now exercise creates the deficit?

That's a great way of doing it for those that have decided to have a great exercise routine.

YES.My TDEE is set for sedentary. So if i go over I should gain. If I go under I should loose. Am I right? Just started this so I really dont know.

Yes you should take your deficet from your TDEE not your BMR then eat back any exercise calories. You really should not go that far under your BMR because I beleive the theory of BMR is the bare minimum calories at your current age and weight to keep your body functioning if you did nothing all day so if you go under your BMR your bodys orgains and stuff can suffer stress specially if you have a low body fat% hense why people who strarve them selfs start to have orgaon faliure