Does anybody know how large of a calorie deficit will cause your body to enter starvation mode? How long does it take for this to kick in, two consecutive days? More?

I have only recently started calorie counting, and I visited various sites to figure out my BMR (which they all agreed was roughly 1460) and try to figure out what to consume from there, which they all disagreed on. (1500, 1100, 800) A friend of mine at work swears by an iPhone application called Lose It! It basically functions much like The Daily Plate, FitDay, etc. in that it calculates a calorie goal for you, adds the caloric value of the foods you eat, and subtracts exercise accordingly. He says it's changed his life - he's lost 26 lbs in the past 3 months.

However, this application tells me that in order to lose two pounds a week, my daily intake should be 963 calories. Similarly, TheDailyPlate's iPhone application was telling me that I should consume 867 calories per day. For this reason, my caloric values have ranged from 800-1000something for the past week and a half. My scale told me that I dropped weight right away in the first couple of days but then I seemed to gain it all back. (Mind you, it is also my TOM so that could also be held accountable).

I know I have only been doing this for a very short time, but I am terrified of putting my body in starvation mode and hurting my metabolism. Am I starving myself? I make sure to eat constantly and I don't feel hungry. However, I love nothing more than to eat, so being told that I can eat more would be a joy and not a chore, lol.

At the weight you're at, losing two pounds per week on a regular basis is probably not going to happen. Two pounds per week is usually the *most* a person can lose (unless they're very heavy to start with). A better rule of thumb (which I think I learned here) is to aim for 1% of your body weight -- so at your current weight, a loss of a pound or a pound and a half is both more desirable and more likely.

You will be starving yourself if you aim for 963 or 867 or whatever. Don't do this!

Hey MiniMo! Dailyplate says my calorie intake should be around 1100, but that's definitely too low for me. You'll see that when you add in your daily exercise, it brings up that value by how many calories you burn (usually a few hundred) so really, you should be eating more like 1400 calories a day. I usually aim for 1300-1500. I've also been kind of worried about the whole starvation mode thing because some days I'm really full from 1000 calories, but I just try to have a handful of walnuts or add peanut butter in somewhere to get those extra calories because I do think your body needs them, even if it's not telling you it does.

I'm pretty new to this too but I've been reading this forum a lot and it seems like your body will let you know what's right for you, but it takes time. So for now, I would aim for at least 1200 cals a day and see how you feel at 1300, 1400, etc. Good luck!

Those target calculators just add and subtract. They won't tell you whether the numbers are healthy, possible, or will put you into starvation mode.

I've read that you shouldn't go below your RMR (resting metabolic rate) which is a little different from BMR (basal metabolic rate). Doing so will cause weight loss to stall, or even a gain, because your body does not have enough nutrients. It tries to conserve. Of course, if you stay that low long enough, you'll still starve, and your body will burn lean body mass as well as fat while it's starving. That's why severe undereating can damage organs.

I notice that your BMI puts you barely overweight now, and your target would put you underweight, so I'm wondering what your goal is.

You can calculate both BMI and BMR/RMR at this site:

http://www.caloriesperhour.com/index_burn.php

Be sure when you do the BMR/RMR calculation, you look further down on the page where the activity factors are put in.

I'd suggest you give up on the idea of 2 pounds per week. At your current weight it's pretty hard if not impossible to reduce that fast.

Again, think about what your goal is.

Good luck!

Jay

I was reading a couple of articles in medical journals that said, while your body will expend less energy (burn fewer calories) when you greatly reduce your caloric intake, "starvation mode" is a myth- you still lose weight eating very low calorie diets. What does happen is when you lose between 10%-20% of your body weight you might plateau for some time before you lose again. Most importantly though, is regardless of the number of calories you consume, it's necessary for a functioning system to take in .8 grams of protein/kg of ideal body weight. Usually ~ 45-47 g/day, and 10 gram of fat. It's really important to have those things or your body can be seriously impaired.

I'm confused. When I put my info into the calculator you linked, that would mean I should eat over 2k calories a day. I think I *must* have missed something, since there's no way I can eat that many without eating meat or tons of fried foods. I have a hard time choking down 1400 calories/day. I have to set reminders to eat, or I'll go 6 or 7 hours and not have anything but water without feeling deprived.

Can you please explain where I've calculated incorrectly?

Bacilli, I have the same question. According to the calculator, my RMR would be 1800, which seems a little excessive and counter-intuitive to me - and 2000+ if I add in exercise! I know we all must discover what works for our bodies, and what TakingCharge said makes sense, so I guess it's back to the drawing board for me. I think we get scared of trying out these higher values, though, scared of undoing all the hard work we've already done.

Jay, you're right in pointing out that I don't have a clear idea of what my goal is - I was always under the impression that 2#/wk was considered healthy, gradual weightloss! Part of it is that I have had many food/eating issues in my past, and although I have a much healthier body image now, I think my self-perception is still a little bit distorted. Also, there is a cultural factor to consider: I'm Asian, and for my height, many girls weigh ~100lbs or even less, and I have always wanted to be in that "normal" group.

Partly why I am watching my body so closely now is that I have had a past of dangerous eating habits, and I am very interested in learning healthy methods and habits this time around. My goal as listed is more of a wild estimate than anything. I'm not really thinking in terms of numbers - right now, 110 seems as far away as 100 which might as well be 120. Most likely, I will consider myself at goal when I feel I am fit and am happy with my shape regardless of whatever the scale says - aka I'll stop when I start losing boobage.

I use LoseIt and one thing they also do is to create a target calorie by taking into consideration calories you burn by working out. So, for example, if you're target is 900, you can get there by eating 1400 and working out and burning off 500.

I basically ignore these kinds of programs and have found a balance point by trial and error. Start at some calorie and adjust up or down until you get to a point where you are losing what you want. Also, you should think about whether losing 2 lbs a week is a realistic goal. For me it was when I had a lot to lose but now that I'm close to my goal, I target about 1 lbs a week. Trying to lose 2 lbs a week would require me to eat too little.

Hi MiniMo -- I'm your height and started out at 150, so I can share what's worked for me.

In my weight loss phase, I shoot for 1200-1300 calories per day. No less. My calculated "resting metabolic rate" (which is the number of calories I'd burn if I was lying in bed all day) is around 1230 calories per day. I found that if I try to reduce my calories below that for any extended period of time, it would just backfire, because I'd get so doggone hungry that I'd end up bingeing and eating the calories anyway. I can stick to 1200 calories per day, work out, and feel OK. IMO it takes very careful planning to get all of your nutritional needs met in 1200 calories (NO junk food room), and if you go lower, I don't see how you could get everything you need long term.

At that -- it took me a year to lose the 40 pounds down to around 110. It took me 6 months to lose the first 30 pounds and 6 months to lose the last 10. But what's important is that you get there, not how long it takes! And, I have a very hard time staying at 110, my maintenance range is really more like 113-116. I wear a size 2-4P and my body fat is approximately 17-18%. Body composition (lean body mass and fat percentage) is just as important as the number on the scale. You want to maintain lean muscle mass and lose fat -- and that takes exercise and strength training. 100 pounds does sound very low (at least to me) for someone of our height. But I'm probably older than you are (I'm 49) so metabolism and hormonal changes affect things too. And I'm originally from the fat MidWest, so compared to my peers, I'm anorexic!

And as far as boobage -- I hate to break this to you but I'm now a 32A (training bra size). But, I actually like it -- I can wear cute little camisole tops with just the shelf bras and they look good. I can go running and not knock myself out ...

Hi again,

Often the calculators are a bit too high for people who are obese/overweight because they assume everyone has the same metabolism. So, you have to go by trial and error to make a program fit for your body.

That said, all those calculators can't be completely far off. I'm older than MBN, and my RMR is 1237--but with my activity level, it's up around 1840, according to that calculator. According to FitDay, it's 1244, and with activity, just over 2000. According to my trainer at the gym, with activity it's just over 1700. So, somewhere between 1700 and 2000 looks like a good range for my daily calorie burn at my activity level. To lose one pound a week, I would eat 1200 to 1500. BUT, I wouldn't aim for 1200 because it's below my RMR without the activity factor. Currently, I'm using 1500 as my target. I don't expect to lose any more than a pound a week average, and I may lose less.

I see lots of folks on 3FC setting their calories low, hoping they can lose faster. I was one of them when I started out, and it worked. If you can do that without going below your RMR WITHOUT the activity factor, then good!

Now, however, after having been exercising regularly for two and a half years, I find that below a certain level, I get too hungry to sustain my target (for instance, now, when I'm trying to lose more). I believe that's because my metabolism has changed. So, if you find yourself getting too hungry, remember that you can eat a few more calories and still lose--just not as fast.

By trial and error, you will find out a level that works for you. But be sure to give it a fair try. Don't switch every other day just because the scale didn't move the right way--stay at one level for a couple of weeks and see how it goes.

This is all just my own opinion based on what I've read. I'm not a trainer, nutritionist, dietitian, doctor, or other professional.

Jay

I use Lose it as well and absolutely LOVE IT. It tells me I should have about 1100 calories a day. I burn between 350 and 600 calories a day depending on what I am scheduled to do. According to what you say, I should be eating alot more. That is IMPOSSIBLE, as I am hardly ever hungry. I was told that as long as you get your nutrients, it doesn't really matter how many you burn. In other words if I eat 1100 calories worth of good nutrients and work half it off....it doesn't matter. I don't need to make up in eating what I burn off.


MiniMo
Just curious, you have on the side bar that you are 142 and want to be 100 lbs. Is that a typo or do you really only want to weigh that much. Unless you are a very, very petite 5'2", I would think that is way to little to weigh.

Thanks for your help everybody, esp MBN & Jay, I think I have a better idea now than I did when I first started. MBN, it is really helpful to hear from someone who has been around where I am now. I saw your pics, you look great! Very healthy and fit. (If you don't mind me asking, what was boobage before the weight loss? This is a concern of mine because it feels like ever since I hit puberty people have always commented on how that is one of my best features, and I think I'd be sad to lose it.)

To give an idea of perspective on why I chose such a low goal weight, my youngest sister is 5'3" and 106 and my other sister is 4'11" and 97 lbs? Neither of them look anorexic, the one that's 5'3" even has boobs and a butt I envy! My cousin is 5'5" and only 102. None of them diet, we all love food. I come from a family of tiny Asian girls and I'm sick of being "the fat one." -sigh-

To be honest, though, I don't want to be stick-thin either. I still want to aim in the hundred-range, but I'd be just as happy at 108 or 105 or 110. I think my goal will get more realistic as I get lower and can see what weight loss does to my body.

Jacque - how long have you been using the LoseIt app? How long did it take you to lose 15lbs?

In case people don't know, and I know this because my degree is in anthropology, different races do have a different range of healthy body fat levels. This isn't a racist statement, it's just after so many centuries of certain diets people in different parts of the world's bodies developed different.

People who are black can have a higher percentage of body fat and still be healthy, white people are in the middle, Asians can be much leaner. So something that would be unhealthy thin on someone of European descent might still be ok on someone from Japan.

At least that's what we were taught. The difference isn't HUGE but it's like 5%+/- if I remember correctly. I just wanted to say something because she mentioned she is Asian and everyone is freaking about her goal.

That being said, 100 might not be appropriate for her personally... it might, but I have a very wide frame. If I got down to less than 125 which is what the tables say I should be I look like a famine victim. I know because I have gotten down to 120 before and I looked great in clothes but out, yikes.

I don't mind you asking. At my heaviest, I was probably something like a 34C. I was never really big except when I was breastfeeding and then probably went to a 36D! I'm a pear by nature, so lost at the top first and bottom last. I really like my upper body right now, nicely toned and you can see defined shoulder and arm muscles, because I don't carry a lot of body fat there. The fat I still have is sticking firmly to my hips and thighs.

So, it really does depend on your body shape. You'll likely be the same general shape after your weight loss as before, just smaller all around. You can definitely change your body shape with weight training, but it takes a while and a lot of work. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it too much. That's why God invented padded and push up bras.