Starvation mode

[Steve]

(muscles burn calories while you're at rest, I think the jury is still out on how much this adds to your metabolism but clearly it has to be something).

So does fat.

 

[Blancita]

That sounds right Steve, since fat is indeed quite metabolically active. However, I'm thinking people would rather have muscle to burn more calories than extra fat. I realize the OP does not want either, but that may not be realistic for her body type.

 

[Steve]

That sounds right Steve, since fat is indeed quite metabolically active. However, I'm thinking people would rather have muscle to burn more calories than extra fat. I realize the OP does not want either, but that may not be realistic for her body type.

I was just making a joke really. Obviously nobody wants to speed up their metabolism by gaining fat. I was just making sure it was understood that muscle isn't the only metabolically active tissue. It's probably just me and the way I read your wording.

 

[Daniel1231]

Starvation mode problem

First off let me say that this is my first time on the forum, ive read over some of the material here, and I think its great that there are like minded people trying to help each other. My names Daniel, currently I way around 330 or so (haven't weighed myself in a few weeks, going to tomorrow though). My long term goal is to drop below 26% body fat so I can serve my country in the Army. Not a huge goal, but from where im starting, trust me its admirable =)

I walk about 2 miles every morning, and once every 3 days or so ill weight lift for 30 minutes, doing squats, push-ups (which amazingly, at least to me, I can do), and other things. I eat around 1500 calories a day, usually consisting of rocky road ice cream, oven pizzas, cereal, and sandwiches. Nothing to fancy, just whatever is laying around the house. But, I recently done some research into my Adjusted metabolic rate, and its anywhere between 3600-4000, depending on where I get it from. Now, lets say 3800 for an Average. Eating only 1500 calories a day would leave me burning about 2300 calories a day, which is pretty impressive, or so I thought.

Recently ive been reading alot about the whole "starvation mode" thing, and im wondering what effect it could have on me. I cant really see myself eating 3000 or so calories a day to avoid it, especially since ive adjusted preety well to eating 300 calorie meals about 5 times a day. Its actually pretty feeling. Whats your guys suggestions?

 

[mikitta]

Do some searching here on the boards about caloric adequacy. Your 1500 calories a day is too low. Up it to around 1800.

Now, about your diet - sure, if you keep your calories low, you can loose weight eating nothing but twinkies. But your body is NOT going to like you in the long run. Please consider doing lean and clean proteins (that is, things like chicken breasts, fish, lean beef that are NOT processed into fish sticks, sausage or chicken nuggets). Also add in some fresh fruits and veggies and some whole grains and you will be feeding your body what it needs.

It's all pretty simple, really - eat clean and healthy, keep up with your exercise program and I am sure you will reach your goals.

God Bless,
mik

 

[Daniel1231]

Im sure your right about my horrible choice of foods heh, though im still gona have to have an oven pizza every once in a while =). But yea, should definately consider a little more variety to say the least. I havent weighed myself since I started trying to lose weight (about 6 weeks ago), simply because I havent had a scale and Im really not to worried about it. I know im losing some weight because Im having a hard time wearing my jeans because they keep falling, gonna have to buy new ones soon. But tomorrow im gona give in and buy some piece of crap scale from WM. I might pick up some healther foods while im there =P

As for 1800 calories a day, ill see how my body weight works with what im doing now, I really dont feel very hungry, but ill try both on seperate weeks and see what I get once I get my scale =)

Thanks for the advice.

 

[maleficent]

your diet is pretty bad, there'snothing wrong with any of those things occassionally, but as a steady diet, you're not getting alot of nutrition in you.

you do needmore calories - not because you'renot hungry (and if you're not hungry basedon what you're eating -I'd strongly suggest that you keep better track of your calories bcause it'sentirely possible that you're not weighing and measuring portions accurarely)

Caloric intake should be baedon where you are... and you need to feed your body basedon wherei it is... so that when you do drop 80lbs - you can adjust your caloric intake accordingly so you have less issues with plateaus... when you start low - you have no room to adjust healthily

 

[allyphoe]

I eat around 1500 calories a day, usually consisting of rocky road ice cream, oven pizzas, cereal, and sandwiches.

Whats your guys suggestions?

At your weight, you've probably got sufficient fat stores not to worry about metabolic slowdown, even if you were eating 1,500 calories a day.

That said, my suggestion would be start weighing your food and tracking your calories. IMHO, there's absolutely no way you're averaging 1,500 calories a day eating calorie-dense food like that. One frozen pizza is more than 1,500 calories, for instance.

 

[crackpot]

A question about "starvation mode"

Is the whole starvation mode thing just about low calories or is there more to it? What i mean is, if someone is consuming only 600 calories a day for a sustained length of time but is getting all the vitamins and nutrients that the body needs, can they continue to lose fat, or will their metabolism still slow down as it would if they were just cutting calories?

 

[LowFatMilk]

At your weight, you've probably got sufficient fat stores not to worry about metabolic slowdown, even if you were eating 1,500 calories a day.

That said, my suggestion would be start weighing your food and tracking your calories. IMHO, there's absolutely no way you're averaging 1,500 calories a day eating calorie-dense food like that. One frozen pizza is more than 1,500 calories, for instance.

For a few weeks straight, I was eating personal sized pizzas/pizza pockets that were frozen that averaged out at 210-250 calories each. I ate one daily, and despite how terribly processed it might have been, I was willing to sacrifice those 250 calories a day. While it was bad for my body, I worked harder to eat more healthy foods all the day long because I know I had that 250 calories of junk food. I tried harder to track my vitamin intake because of it, to make sure I was getting enough nutrition.

But, it doesn't make up for the fact that without that junk going into my body every day, I feel like I have more energy.

 

[Amarande]

...

Is the whole starvation mode thing just about low calories or is there more to it? What i mean is, if someone is consuming only 600 calories a day for a sustained length of time but is getting all the vitamins and nutrients that the body needs, can they continue to lose fat, or will their metabolism still slow down as it would if they were just cutting calories?

I'm curious about this myself, because I have a large amount of fat to lose and am taking in an average of 1000-1200 calories a day (sometimes less if I'm not hungry or burn a lot with exercise).

However, I take a daily multivitamin (One a Day Weight Smart), drink green tea, do an hour of cardio everyday, 30 minutes of total body strength training (with free weights) every other day and Pilates 3 times a week.

I allow myself to eat whatever I want, whether its pizza or broccoli, as long as my calories stay in the 1000-1200 range. Do I still have to worry about my metabolism slowing down very much or having any serious muscle loss?

 

[Dave1976]

Thanks by the way for posting this. I am one of those guys who gets into this habit as well. Especially since I got married. Thanks for the article.

 

[Steve]

Is the whole starvation mode thing just about low calories or is there more to it?

It's not a "thing."

Being the buzzword it is today, people are believing that it's a thing. But it's not. It doesn't turn on and off.

The starvation response is simply a fancy way of labeling the physiological/biochemical adaptations that take place in our bodies in response to a shortage of energy.

That energy-shortage can come by way of diet and exercise and/or insufficient levels of body fat.

What i mean is, if someone is consuming only 600 calories a day for a sustained length of time but is getting all the vitamins and nutrients that the body needs, can they continue to lose fat, or will their metabolism still slow down as it would if they were just cutting calories?

What's the difference between "consuming 600 calories a day" and "cutting calories?"

I'm not sure I follow.

I think what you're trying to ask is if you provide the body with adequate nutrients while eating very low calories, will you be able to ward off the starvation response.

The answer is no.

The starvation response is a regulatory process controlling/monitoring energy flux and stores.

You're sort of on to something though as the more 'strict' you make a diet (i.e. extremely low calories as in 600) the more important it is to get sufficient nutrients in. But at 600, unless you're real small, you're probably doing something wrong anyhow.

 

[crackpot]

It's not a "thing."

Being the buzzword it is today, people are believing that it's a thing. But it's not. It doesn't turn on and off.

The starvation response is simply a fancy way of labeling the physiological/biochemical adaptations that take place in our bodies in response to a shortage of energy.

That energy-shortage can come by way of diet and exercise and/or insufficient levels of body fat.



What's the difference between "consuming 600 calories a day" and "cutting calories?"

I'm not sure I follow.

I think what you're trying to ask is if you provide the body with adequate nutrients while eating very low calories, will you be able to ward off the starvation response.

The answer is no.

The starvation response is a regulatory process controlling/monitoring energy flux and stores.

You're sort of on to something though as the more 'strict' you make a diet (i.e. extremely low calories as in 600) the more important it is to get sufficient nutrients in. But at 600, unless you're real small, you're probably doing something wrong anyhow.

Thanks for the response there.

I know that Starvation Mode isn't something that switches on and off, after reading your other posts, but it seemed the best words to try and ask my question. When I said about 600 calories, and cutting calories I was trying to make a difference between the quality of the calories, just didn't do a good job of making myself clear. But you got it anyway.

I was just curious about people doing those diets with the meal replacement shakes, like the Cambridge Diet. I know the calories don't go as low as that, I think the low end is around 750, but they are supposed to have everything that the body needs to get by. So if they do this long term, maybe 6 months, their metabolisms will slow down because they aren't getting enough calories, and the weight loss will slow, but as long as they are getting the needed nutrients etc, they aren't doing any serious damage. Does that sound right, or are they still putting themselves at risk from other health issues?

Anyway, like I said, just curious. I'm not doing anything like this myself, I enjoy solid food too much.

 

[Steve]

I'm not familiar with the diet so it's hard to say.

But I recently did something that might satisfy your craving for information. I did something known as a Protein Sparing Modified Fast (psmf). On a psmf, all you eat is adequate protein to trigger muscle maintenance even in the face of very low calories, adequate essential fats (these two things cover the essential nutrients... good essential nutrients to learn what that means), and a bunch of fibrous veggies.

Nothing more.

A PSMF puts smaller women at under 1000 calories per day.

Does it cause damage? That depends on your definition of damage. Long term it's not something I'd stay in due to the hormonal and physiological adaptations associated with long term starvation dieting. These things, in general, are reversible. But starving yourself of energy for a prolonged period of time puts a ton of stress on your body.

That's why most of these very low calories approaches are temporary. And unfortunately, most of them lead to temporary results to match the temporary-ness of the diet in general.

They also set you up for a nasty rebound in weight gain once done.

 

[crackpot]

I'm not familiar with the diet so it's hard to say.

But I recently did something that might satisfy your craving for information. I did something known as a Protein Sparing Modified Fast (psmf). On a psmf, all you eat is adequate protein to trigger muscle maintenance even in the face of very low calories, adequate essential fats (these two things cover the essential nutrients... good essential nutrients to learn what that means), and a bunch of fibrous veggies.

Nothing more.

A PSMF puts smaller women at under 1000 calories per day.

Does it cause damage? That depends on your definition of damage. Long term it's not something I'd stay in due to the hormonal and physiological adaptations associated with long term starvation dieting. These things, in general, are reversible. But starving yourself of energy for a prolonged period of time puts a ton of stress on your body.

That's why most of these very low calories approaches are temporary. And unfortunately, most of them lead to temporary results to match the temporary-ness of the diet in general.

They also set you up for a nasty rebound in weight gain once done.

I noticed in another forum that loads of people were losing a tremendous amount of weight on the Cambridge and other similar very low calorie diets, but I also noticed a lot of them were doing the diet for the second or third time. The forum even had sub categories for "returners".

I just googled the PSMF and had a quick look at the first site. It said that no carbohydrates were allowed on this, so basically it puts the body into ketosis?

 

[Steve]

Huge deficits will lead to huge weight losses.

Especially in the beginning when your metabolism is still zipping along and you deplete water/glycogen stores.

But there are a lot of pitfalls and the majority of people in my experience are going to be served best by something like this. This is an understatement.

Plus, there's more to it. I won't go into a lot here but things like refeeds. I see people around here saying they're 'refeeding.' Refeeding is a very specific thing that isn't really the same as what some members here are doing. But refeeds are part of any 'sane' starvation diet.

PSMF is no carbs aside from the fibrous veggies you eat, so yes, you are in ketosis.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Huge deficits will lead to huge weight losses.

Especially in the beginning when your metabolism is still zipping along and you deplete water/glycogen stores.

But there are a lot of pitfalls and the majority of people in my experience are going to be served best by something like this. This is an understatement.

Plus, there's more to it. I won't go into a lot here but things like refeeds. I see people around here saying they're 'refeeding.' Refeeding is a very specific thing that isn't really the same as what some members here are doing. But refeeds are part of any 'sane' starvation diet.

PSMF is no carbs aside from the fibrous veggies you eat, so yes, you are in ketosis.

I like the way Lyle McDonald puts the differences into refeeds and free meals.

He basically says this in a nutshell:

Freemeals: A meal that breaks your diet plan... for the benefit of a mental break (not so much a physical one). He suggests it be a dinner meal, because mentally when people do free meals during the morning or afternoon they tend to stay "off" their plans the whole day. It does help with restoring some glycogen levels but nothing like a refeed does for us, also, the healthier the better but not necessary (eat what you want basically, to get it out of your system).

Refeeds: They are generally much more structured to give the body a break from dieting. It can last hours, days, weeks or months. You are replacing the body's glycogen stores systematically and giving the body a chance to "heal" itself from tissue breakdown. It's a long diet break designed with a purpose... Most people on this forum think cheat meals are refeeds (including myself at one point).

 

[Steve]

There's actually a lot more to a refeed. It's a break with a specific purpose of a psychological buffer as well as the upregulation of certain aspects of our physiology that tend to crash with prolonged dieting.

I haven't actually heard of refeeds lasting a month. The biggest I've heard maybe was something like a few days.

Refeeds help turn off catabolism, which all diets have.

They refill glycogen stores, as DP mentioned.

As stated above, they help reverse the hormonal adaptations associated with dieting (Oh noez1!!!1, teh starvationz modez is gonna gets mah musclez11!!!)

Food selection is also a major component of a refeed. A timed cheat is not a refeed. Refeeds are predominantly comprised of the same recommended protein intake in any other diet coupled with a small amount of fats (just the essentials for the most part) and carbs. But what carbs?

Starchy.

That's right. It's a time where pasta and breads are not just okay, they're recommended.

Many people mistake a refeed for a period where they can eat junk food predominantly. Although there is some room for that... it should be limited to a large degree.

Timing, duration, etc, etc. There's so much that goes into it.

Refeeds aren't even suitable for most here.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Yeah, I didn't go primarily into what types of foods in a refeed, but it should probably look like your diet meals in LARGER quantities.

At least that is how I've handled all of my refeeds most recently... It's helped with getting through some hungry times and it's helped with kick starting my metabolism.

I thought I've read in Lyle's book that they can last a few months (but I suppose you're looking at a bulk at that point if you get into too high of calories). At anyrate, mines has never lasted more than 4 or 5 days. I wonder if I should have even been doing them at all according to your post.