Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 15:38
SKOL's Avatar
SKOL SKOL is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 66
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 292/265/195 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 28%
Default Starvation Mode too few calories

Sometimes it seems the more I read to more confused I get.

I have implemented intermittent fasting to my LC eating. My IF window is anywhere from 16hrs to 23hrs. One of the more astute phrases I have learned here is "If you are not hungry DON"T EAT". Some days I feel like I can go without eating but I'm afraid to go more than 24hrs without eating (not sure why).

I track everything I eat with myfitnesspal app. Most days I am only consuming 800-1000 calories (sometimes less).

I read a few articles that advised not going below 1,200 calories a day or your body will go into "starvation mode". But, I have also read that "starvation mode" is a myth. Like I said, the more I read the more confused I get.

I'm not really too concerned about it. I just find it an interesting subject.

There have been a few older posts on this forum discussing this topic, but most are over 10 years old.

I just thought it would be good to have a more updated discussion on this topic. I always get such insightful repsonses here. It doesn't hurt to ask. Maybe someone has a hidden piece of information.

Please post your thoughts or information on "starvation mode" or eating too few calories.

Last edited by SKOL : Sun, Jul-23-17 at 19:17.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 17:10
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,328
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

You can try searching (use "Advanced Search" and search on this forum, not the whole WWW) for "Starvation Mode" to bring up some old threads.

One of the problems is that "starvation mode" means different things to different researchers. The average person thinks of "starvation" as being no food at all, but the classic study of "starvation mode" was done on normal weight male college students given 1500 cals instead of 2000+ cals of their usual high-carb, moderate fat diet. So it was really under-eating all-day mode. They lost weight but then their metabolisms slowed and they laid about until their bodies reduced calories out to equal calories in.

Last edited by deirdra : Sun, Jul-23-17 at 17:23.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 17:12
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,328
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

For me, "starvation mode" (decrease in basal metabolism) did occur when I followed high-carb, low-fat diets of 1000-1200 calories spread throughout the day in a predictable way. My body temperature was 96.8F instead of 98.6F and I tried several thermometers and they all gave the same reading during my 30 years of high-carb, low-fat/cal diets. I was cold and tired all the time, but my thyroid levels were OK. I had the energy & metabolism of a sloth.

The first thing I noticed when eating LC was that I felt warm, more energetic & active and my body temperature rose to and stayed at 98.6F for 17 years now. To me that indicates my metabolism does not slow down on LC. This was true on 3-5 meals/snacks per day and on 1-2 meals per day with intermittent fasting. Though I would get hungry on 5 mini meals totaling 1200 calories per day. As I added fat and tried intermittent fasting, I found that I wasn't hungry and naturally migrated to 1-2 meals per day. My temperature, energy & activity are normal, not depressed, even if I eat only 1200 calories in a 1-4 hr window.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 17:49
SKOL's Avatar
SKOL SKOL is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 66
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 292/265/195 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 28%
Default

Thanks, Deirdra.

I did search older posts. Most of them were 10 years old or older. I just thought there might be newer info.

I never would have thought body temperature would have an impact.

I did read about a guy who didn't eat for over a year. He just took supplements and drank water and lost over 100lbs. That's extreme.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 19:00
SKOL's Avatar
SKOL SKOL is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 66
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 292/265/195 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 28%
Default

post deleted...new information later in thread.

Last edited by SKOL : Mon, Jul-24-17 at 09:39.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 19:02
SKOL's Avatar
SKOL SKOL is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 66
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 292/265/195 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 28%
Default

another article:

Can Eating Too Few Calories Prevent Weight Loss?
by ERIN COLEMAN, R.D., L.D. Last Updated: Jul 18, 2017


To effectively lose weight, you must burn more calories than you eat. Cutting your calorie intake is often the best way to shed pounds. However, eating too few calories can contribute to negative side effects. Unless medically supervised, avoid following very low-calorie meal plans.

Effects on Weight Loss

Eating too few calories won’t prevent you from losing weight. However, it can slow down your body’s metabolism, making it more difficult to shed pounds. A study published in 2006 in “Obesity” found that very low-calorie diets, or VLCDs, containing less than 800 calories daily are not more effective long term than low-calorie diets providing 1,000 to 1,500 calories a day. Weight-Control Information Network, or WIN, says low-calorie diets actually work better for most adults than very low-calorie diets.


Side Effects

Eating too few calories, especially fewer than 800 calories a day, can cause nausea, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue and gallstone formation, according to WIN. Because these side effects commonly develop in patients who follow VLCDs, WIN suggests doctors monitor these patients every two weeks, which may become expensive for some people.

Benefits of VLCDs

The main benefit of a very low-calorie diet is you will likely lose weight when following it because your body’s basal metabolic rate is almost certainly higher than 800 calories a day, even if you’re sedentary. WIN reports that weight losses of 3 to 5 pounds weekly are common when following very low-calorie meal plans. Therefore, eating too few calories likely won’t prevent weight loss, but it may affect your body’s ability to keep the lost weight off long term.

Considerations for Weight Regain

WIN reports that weight regain is common among patients who lose weight using VLCDs. One reason for this is that these diets are difficult to adhere to and often consist of drinking medical nutrition shakes or eating bars as meal replacements instead of healthy meal planning. The best weight-loss strategy for long-term success is losing weight at a rate of 1 to 2 pounds weekly, suggests the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Harvard Health Publications recommends that women eat at least 1,200 calories a day and men consume a minimum of 1,500 calories daily during weight loss.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 19:12
SKOL's Avatar
SKOL SKOL is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 66
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 292/265/195 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 28%
Default

last one...


David Greenwalt: The 4 Fallacies of Undereating — and How to Overcome This Negative Thinking


By David Greenwalt

If you believe undereating is the solution to fat loss or that undereating is the cause of your weight stall, you may have fallen victim to the fallacies of the underfed metabolism. As a fitness and lifestyle coach, I routinely advise clients who believe undereating is either the answer to, or cause of, their sticking point how to break through weight-loss plateaus. As part of this process, I offer the top four myths and their corresponding truths surrounding an underfed metabolism.

Myth 1: I’m dieting and my metabolic rate slowed down. I’ve done something wrong!

Everyone knows that to lose weight you must become hypocaloric — that is, you must consume fewer calories in a day than your body needs to maintain. The hypocaloric state could be thought of as a form of “undereating.” You are eating under what you need to maintain. Not only is there nothing wrong with this. It’s necessary to strip the unwanted fat.

What many people don’t realize, however, is every single hypocaloric person sees a 10-25 percent drop in resting metabolic rate (RMR), the amount of energy expended daily at rest. The fact your metabolism has slowed doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve screwed up your dietary needs. A slower RMR is a naturally occurring response by the body to “protect you” from losing any precious, stored fat — at least that’s how it thinks.

Myth 2: My weight won’t budge. I must have stopped or killed my metabolism from undereating.

Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.

Myth 3: I can never consume fewer than 1,200 calories or my body will go into starvation mode and weight loss will stop.

Your body goes into “starvation” mode the minute you cut calories to lose weight. Sure, there are graduations of “starvation” in that cutting 100 calories out of your typical daily diet won’t usually create as severe a metabolic slowdown as cutting 1,000 calories but, by enlarge, as soon as you achieve the hypocaloric state you’re going to be working with a depressed RMR that has slowed between 10 and 25 percent from normal.

There is no health-robbing, weight-stalling boogey man who lives in the land you can only see when you consume even one calorie fewer than the almighty 1,200, a line-in-the-sand, must-never-ever-go-less-than demarcation that is so prevalently supported in dietetic circles.

Is there a point where eating too few calories can be harmful to health? Sure. Very-low-calorie diets (VLCD) are those where participants consistently eat fewer than 800 calories per day for weeks or months. VLCDs should only be sustained by those under the care of a physician so that proper monitoring of health can be ensured. VLCDs are not the cause, however, of weight stalls. And they most assuredly haven’t stopped or killed any metabolisms.

Myth 4: I’m eating 1,000 calories per day and not losing any weight. I need to eat less.

You don’t need to eat less. You probably need to eat more — volume that is. Foods such as leafy greens and fibrous, watery vegetables provide a lot of bulk and volume. High-water, high-volume foods, especially when combined with lean proteins and a little bit of healthy fat are usually the most nutritious and best for maximizing satiety (feeling satisfied or full after eating).

You don’t need to eat less. You probably need to eat real food. I define real food as those foods that are old (existed for thousands of years), that are simple, and that are usually a single ingredient. Examples include fresh fruits and vegetables along with beef, poultry, pork and fish without additives or preservatives. Exceptions may include what I call “grandmother multiples.” Grandmother multiples are packaged foods that only contain ingredients you would have found in your great grandmother’s kitchen, such as tuna packed in water (ingredients: tuna, water, salt) or spaghetti sauce (ingredients: water, tomato paste, diced tomatoes, onions, sugar, salt, garlic powder, spices, basil).

You may need to eat less, but first you need to properly record what you are eating for real. What happens to most people is they don’t accurately record what they really eat and their memory serves up the last chicken-breast salad they ate as their standard while conveniently leaving out the handfuls of cereal, bites from the kids’ plates at breakfast, the half-cup of intended rice that ended up being a full cup, and so on. You can’t legitimately claim you are eating 1000 calories per day if you’re not meticulously recording what you eat, if you’re eyeballing your measures, or if you’re using the trendy palm and fist method of portion control.

If you’re overweight and your weight is stuck it’s not because you are undereating and you haven’t killed or damaged your metabolism. The average woman eating 1,200 calories of real food per day and the average man eating 1,500 calories of real food per day will achieve a healthy weight unless a metabolic condition such as hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) exists. Very rarely is obesity caused by an underlying medical condition. If you believe you have one I recommend you consult with your physician for testing.

Overeating is a much more serious problem than undereating, particularly in developed nations. Get detailed with food measuring and recording as you strive to understand why your weight may be misbehaving. Contrary to popular, widespread misinformation, you haven’t killed or harmed your metabolism even if you’ve undereaten. Your metabolism is resilient and so are you.


David Greenwalt is the author of The Leanness Lifestyle, a complete body-transformation resource for women and men sick of dieting and ready to permanently lose weight. A certified Wellness Coach, David founded Leanness Lifestyle University (LLU), an evidence-based, lifestyle-education platform that provides users with innovative tools to track, report, and score the behaviors optimal for successful weight-management. To learn more about David and to read his blog, visit him at www.lluniversity.com.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 19:51
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Doing My Best
Posts: 4,924
 
Plan: LC/CancerRecovery
Stats: 170/135/130 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 88%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

Dr. Fung's website has a blog post called Fasting Myths and the first one is "Fasting puts you in ‘starvation’ mode."
Quote:
Long ago disproven, nevertheless these myths still persist. If they were true, none of us would be alive today. Consider the consequences of burning muscle for energy. During long winters, there were many days where no food was available. After the first episode, you would be severely weakened. After several repeated episodes, you would be so weak that you would be unable to get hunt or gather food. Humans would never have survived as a species. The better question would be why the human body would store energy as fat if it planned to burn protein instead. The answer, of course, is that is does not burn muscle as we discussed in the previous post. It was only a myth.
The search function on his site is very efficient. I go there often when I have questions.

From a personal perspective, I keep my body off balance with the amount of food I eat, when I eat, and how much fat I eat. This has been working for me. YMMV.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Jul-23-17, 20:20
SKOL's Avatar
SKOL SKOL is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 66
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 292/265/195 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 28%
Default

Thanks, Bluesinger. I'll give it a read.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jul-24-17, 09:06
SKOL's Avatar
SKOL SKOL is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 66
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 292/265/195 Male 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 28%
Default

Found a couple good articles by Dr. Fung that address this issue. They are a good read if you would like to check them out.

He basically debunks the "starvation mode" myth.

https://intensivedietarymanagement....g-myths-part-5/

https://intensivedietarymanagement....ken-metabolism/
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Jul-24-17, 09:21
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,422
 
Plan: P:E=>1 (Q3-22)
Stats: 168/100/82 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 79%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKOL
...Please post your thoughts or information on "starvation mode" or eating too few calories.

My Advice: Read Less, Live More
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:58.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.