Extreme starvation mode?

Z

zsuper

New member
Hi, I'm a 145 lbs, 5'8" male.

I was thinking of going on a zigzag diet, but I'm running into a few problems that I can't seem to find any information on.

The first problem is that my daily calorie intake is extremely erratic (and low). I think my suggested daily calorie intake is around 2400. On an average day, I only take in maybe 800-1000, and it's usually all in one or two meals. Some days I don't eat at all. I went through high school not eating anything from morning until dinner, so I don't really feel hunger pains anymore; sometimes I forget to eat without the reminder. This makes me wonder if my body will have a lot of trouble adjusting to higher calorie intake, or possibly cause me to gain a lot of weight.

The second problem is that the daily activity I can get is extremely restricted. I have 8 hours devoted to work (programming, very little to no movement) plus the time it takes to get ready, and then I have 4 more hours committed to other things that require me to be at my computer at night.
I manage to go for two hour-long walks every day, and I really can't fit any more exercise in. Unless I'm wrong, I only burn probably 1100 calories in a day, if that; it's more or less impossible for me to get a deficit if I eat as much as I should.

My third problem is that even eating as little as I do, I should have a calorie deficit almost every day, yet I never lose weight or fat. I'm relatively sure I have next to no muscle mass.


Friends have suggested that if I start a zigzag diet while taking protein supplements and up my calorie intake to ~1100 every even day, ~1400 every odd day, and keep on my schedule, I should gain muscle mass and lose fat weight relatively fast. But they're just friends, so I'm kind of looking for a second opinion; especially because I don't think I'd have a calorie deficit with that plan, which I've read is required to lose any fat weight.


Also worth noting, I don't care whether or not I gain muscle, I just want to lose the fat; which I have a lot of, there's enough fat that if I told people I weigh 145 lbs, most wouldn't believe me. But I'm pretty sure I need to gain muscle to do that. I'm finding it's hard to find information geared towards me, since everything seems to be aimed more towards people who are ~200 lbs trying to lose some large amount of weight.

But on the other hand, from what I've read, I should be losing a lot of fat if there's very little muscle compromising my body weight and I have a calorie deficit. Is it possible that my horrible nutrient balance is preventing this? Do I need a certain nutrient in order to burn fat more efficiently? Would it be more efficient for me to do a fast for a week or two?

Any help would be appreciated. Also, ignore the fact that I'm talking to myself in edits.
 
Last edited:
Losing Fat: Bodybuilders know a lot about this

I belong to another board, but come here to read posts. While I do want to retain muscle (because muscle burns fat and raises metabolism), I want to lower my Body Fat %. Bodybuilders have the lowest %bf, so they're the ones to look to for advice. I've done what you explained, eat / not eat etc. It didn't work for me. Your metabolism will slow down on the days you don't eat, in order to conserve fat - survival.

What you need to do is lower your calorie intake, exercise more, and most importantly, eat 5-6 smaller healthy meals per day. This way your metabolism is constantly running on high to burn off the smaller meals. All these bodybuilders cannot be wrong. I've only been dieting and working out seriously for 10 days, and I've lost inches already. It isn't mostly water weight either, since I'm not doing some fad diet. I ate regularly (but still mostly healthy) over the weekend and did not gain anything as some fad dieters report. I feel very energetic and I think more frequent meals are really the key here.

I do take supplements, one is Hyperdrive (has stimulants, also Hoodia, which contrary to nay-sayers, does work) but you still need to have willpower. I also make sure I have adequate protein in my diet, and I eat "clean". (no junk at all unless I pick a cheat day).

This is the quickest I have ever seen fat melt off. My own diet (this works for me) is making a veggie soup (cabbage, carrot, onion and whatever else you like) just don't overcook it. I eat plain yogurt, egg whites, fruits and of course my big salad (watch the dressing here!) for dinner. I have about 6 smaller meals a day:

1. Yogurt & Fruit
2. Veggie Soup
3. Raw Veggie Snack
4. 2 egg whites (sometimes egg white/spinach omelet - no butter)
5. More soup or Veggie snacks
6. Big green salad with shredded carrots and any veggies you like

I do 2, 20-min workouts a day (alternate upper body/lower) and always abs/core
20 mins cardio or more if I have time

Learn how the bodybuilders eat, and you can lose fat and keep it off. Even if you don't want to build muscle, you should try not to lose muscle, since that helps keep your basal metabolic rate up.

Hope this helps. PM me if you want to know what forum I go to for info, since I'm not sure if links are allowed here or not. Best of luck to ya!

PS: I should also mention re: my diet, that I'm foregoing meats for a bit just to detox. When I get in full swing with this plan, I add boneless/skinless chicken breast and fish - I don't want it to look like starvation because I get to eat quite a bit of food!
 
Last edited:
I actually thought it would be worse to bring my current calorie intake any lower than it already is. I've tried increasing it before, but I found I was getting rounder fast and stopped.

I am planning on trying to eat more often every day, though just splitting my current meals into smaller pieces.
 
backtosize3 said:
What you need to do is lower your calorie intake, exercise more, and most importantly, eat 5-6 smaller healthy meals per day. This way your metabolism is constantly running on high to burn off the smaller meals. All these bodybuilders cannot be wrong. I've only been dieting and working out seriously for 10 days, and I've lost inches already. It isn't mostly water weight either, since I'm not doing some fad diet. I ate regularly (but still mostly healthy) over the weekend and did not gain anything as some fad dieters report. I feel very energetic and I think more frequent meals are really the key here.
Click to expand...

He's only taking in 800 - 1,000 calories per day already...how could you tell him to lower his calorie intake more than that?
 
LoveFool said:
Since you know what starvation mode is and how you get there, maybe you should up your calories.
Click to expand...

Right, but I'm a bit hesitant to do that, if there's any other way. The last time I tried, after two weeks I had gained nearly 10 lbs. If I only lose at a rate of 1 lb every week or two, I put myself back as much as 20 weeks.

Also, if I do try to start eating more again, how do I know when my metabolism is back to normal?
Exactly how do I know how much I should be eating? According to my RMR and daily activity, I need about 2700 calories, which is a lot more than I can handle.
Can I focus on building muscle while I increase my calorie intake, or will I just put it on as water weight and fat?

Actually, if I really am burning 2700 calories each day, I should probably be dead from having a ~1700+ calorie deficit every day. Shouldn't I? That kind of makes me wonder how many I really burn.
 
Last edited:
I've made up a diet plan that averages ~1250 calories per day (ranging from 1150 to 1450 each day) over the course of a week.
I read through a lot of sites, and have come to agree that I burn roughly 2300-2500 calories each day; that gives me a deficit of of about 1150. Which I think might be too high.

My calorie intake is above what I've read is considered starvation level (under 1100), but I still have a really high deficit. Can I still get my body out of starvation mode and burn fat like that?

Another worry is that my diet is very low on fat, but high in carbs (almost equal parts sugar and fiber). Do I really need a decent amount of fat in my diet? I've read a lot of conflicting arguments on this.
 
Eat. It's quite simple, actually. You gain a few pounds of fluid and potentially fat, but who gives a shit?

Unless you want to be battling this forever, I suggest you temporarily remove yourself from the need to see a particular number on the scale and repair your body.

Until then, you're going to be spinning your wheels.

And read the stickies.

And don't listen to people telling you to lower your calories.
 
Zig Zag Diet?

Can someone provide some information on this diet, ie. where can I learn more since I have not heard of it before?
 
rlb722 said:
Can someone provide some information on this diet, ie. where can I learn more since I have not heard of it before?
Click to expand...
Other than trying to get your post count up.. which screams spammer to be...

why n ot read the stickied threads and educate yourself about proper nutrition instead of looking for the quick way out
 
backtosize3 said:
Bodybuilders have the lowest %bf, so they're the ones to look to for advice.
Click to expand...

You associate a low bf % with health?

Trust me, bodybuilders are the last group of people I'd look to for advice - unless I was cutting for a contest. Bodybuilding, as generally exemplified in the magazines, is based on a fatally flawed training philosophy that places importance on appearance rather than health or function.

Look at all the pro wrestlers (and body builders) that have been dropping like flies over the last few years as they try to get more and more ripped for appearance sakes.

If you want to talk low bf numbers, here's some numbers from various sports for trained athletes:



It's always been my contention cyclists (and X country skiers) were the fittest athletes with the lowest bf% numbers. If you want a real "calorie burn" get out the old road bike and start pounding a few hills.

BTW, if you want a feel for zig-zagging calories, Jeremy Likeness has a calculator on his site - .

If you get a chance, take a look at Joel Martion's book "The Cheat to Lose Diet" . Loosely based on this concept and is a good read.
 
Wow, for a male, that is very low calories. Reminds me of when I was annorexic back in the day... but you know what.. when I started eating properly again (yogurt and lean chicken to start off with), I didn't get 'fat'.. so it depends what you eat. Go for protein. And instead of all that cardio, maybe do some weights! :)
 
Steve said:
Eat. It's quite simple, actually. You gain a few pounds of fluid and potentially fat, but who gives a shit?

Unless you want to be battling this forever, I suggest you temporarily remove yourself from the need to see a particular number on the scale and repair your body.

Until then, you're going to be spinning your wheels.

And read the stickies.

And don't listen to people telling you to lower your calories.
Click to expand...

What he said.
ABBA
 
Skinny Fat

You're what's sometimes referred to as "skinny fat." Skinny because at 5'8" you weight only 145 lbs. That's relatively thin. Yes, most of your bodyweight is composed of fat (you said yourself that most people don't believe you're only 145).

The problem is that your metabolism is probably wrecked due to your poor eating habits and inactivity. You've been consuming so few calories for so long, and at only one or two meals per day, your metabolism is super slow. That means that any calories you do ingest are quickly added to your fat stores. That's why you remain fat, even though you hardly eat anything. Plus, aside from walking, you don't really get any useful, muscle building exercise.

The way to fix your condition is definitely not by eating less. That'll just make things worse. What you have to do is spread your caloric intake into more meals. You don't even have to increase your caloric intake if you don't want to. If you were to spread your 1100 calories per day into 4 to 6 smaller meals, instead of 1 or 2, your metabolism would start to speed up. This has been proven through scientific research.

Also, forget about those hour long walks. Instead, replace that time with weight training. That way, you're not adding any extra workouts into your day. You're still working out for an hour, but instead of walking (which at this point isn't doing anything for you), you'll be performing some muscle producing, testosterone boosting, weight training. By building muscle, you'll start to increase your metabolism as well.
 
Doc Bunkum said:
It's always been my contention cyclists (and X country skiers) were the fittest athletes with the lowest bf% numbers. If you want a real "calorie burn" get out the old road bike and start pounding a few hills.
Click to expand...

Doc, on what do you base this opinion that cyclists and cross country skiers are the fittest? Are you basing fitness on bf levels? You said yourself that bf is not always an indicator of health (as with bodybuilders and pro wrestlers). What definition of fitness are you using?

There are several definitions for fitness. For example, possessing several, if not all of the following qualities: capacity to perform work, strength, power, power endurance, muscular endurance, cardiovascular endurance, flexibility, agility, coordination, and so on. Some of the fittest athletes may not do any cycling or skiing whatsoever.

Example: decathletes, gymnasts, pole vaulters, etc.
 
EganC said:
What definition of fitness are you using?
Click to expand...

"The ability to carry out daily tasks with vigor and alertness, without undue fatigue, and with ample energy to enjoy leisure time pursuits and to meet unforeseen emergencies."

I'd say there were four components to that definition of fitness: cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility.

And if I had to chose one as the most important, I'd choose cardiovascular endurance.

A basic requirement to fitness is a strong heart, lungs, and circulatory system so they can get a continued supply of oxygen to the cells.

And cycling and X-country skiing are two sports that build up cardiovascular endurance like no other.

A low body fat number is the result of participating

No doubt decathletes, gymnasts, pole vaulters, put up low bf numbers because of the nature of the sport. But I doubt they have the lung capacity or endurance of those two sports I mentioned.

Besides, anyone can get on a bike or a pair of skis, but not everyone is going to be able to pole vault or jump over a pommel horse for a workout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top