I so did not know that. I was only eating 1500 when I should have been eating like 2,000........ From what I have been researching online; when you eat too little calories; your body holds onto every little calorie and your body burns calories at a slower pace........... I just thought I should post this concept that was reveled to me because some of you may be going through the same thing and seeing as this is a support site...... yeah

It puts your body in starvation mode and slows your metabolism. Although most of the things I've read have said that happens when you're doing under 1200 for most people.

This is a contentious issue. My take:

First off, there's no magical "starvation mode": your body can't just "hold on" to calories, it needs energy to live. However, when there is an energy deficit, it has two choices--burning fat or reducing energy needs. Think of your body as your household. If you start making less money--there is a deficit in your budget--you either have to start spending less OR dip into your savings. The way your body "spends less" is by lowering your body temperature, stopping you from fidgeting, slowing your digestion, keeping you asleep or tired so that you don't move as much.

For most people, I think, the body's first response to a decrease in earnings (less eating) is to dip into savings (fat). But once the cut backs are severe enough, the body starts to look for other ways to deal with the lowered income. Over time, it finds more and more small ways to save energy.

From the outside, what this looks like is weight loss slowing. It won't really stop--like a household, the body can only cut spending so much, and after that it HAS to go into savings--but the weight loss doesn't go up in proportion to the food consumption going down. Basically, if a 500 calorie deficit gets you 1 pound/week, a 1000 calorie deficit won't automatically get you a 2 lbs/week loss. Maybe it gets you 1.2/pounds a week and tired all the time. It's not a straight line.

For me, I find my body easily gives up 1% of total body weight per week, but more than that I really have to fight for.

One other note: one reason for this is also that people on VLC diets, IME, are more likely to go off plan because they are starving. If you eat 1200 calories a day most days but once a week have a "cheat day" where you are eating 4000 (which isn't that hard to do), you are really averaging about 1600 calories a day--but it feels like 1200 because six days out of seven, you are 1200 calorie hungry.

Shmead, that's brilliantly described, thankyou!

To take it on one, I'm assuming that after a while of trying to slow things down to save energy, the body eventually gets used to the new, lower income and picks back up again? Like, once we get used to the lack of funds, we find ways to economize that aren't about cutting back but about being more efficient?

I ask because since I dropped to +/-1200 (down from 1400) on November 17th, I have lost 7.3lbs, about 2.25lbs a week, and feel physically and mentally fantastic.

I agree with your analogy absolutely, and wonder if the previous 6 months of losing on 1400 reassured my body that bankruptcy wasn't round the corner!

The trouble with online estimates of calorie intake is that they are only estimates, and they are based on averages and calculations. That's why people need to find out for themselves whether they lose or gain at a certain calorie level. And, it needs to be observed over time, not one day to the next.

The "danger" of going below certain levels is that your body doesn't just burn fat when it needs energy. It also uses muscle and other tissues. You don't want to lose muscle. That's like the household selling the furniture to hang on to the savings account.

Everyone who loses weight does lose some muscle--but exercise, eating sufficient protein, and not going drastic on calorie reduction helps minimize it.

Also, "starvation mode" only occurs after a prolonged period eating less than basal metabolic rate (BMR).

I'd say to the OP--start with raising your calories by a hundred per day for a week or two and see what happens. Stay active.

Jay

I am inclined to agree with Shmead and the others - if you eat extremely low calories for a long time, you *will* lose weight - after all, starving prisoners in the gulag don't usually come out obese, right?

But there are consequences to keeping your calories too low for too long - if you keep your calories too too too low, you will feel horrible and have no energy; you risk losing lean mass (muscle and bone) as well as fat; your skin and hair and fingernails will suffer; you are more likely to come out looking gaunt and unhealthy (think starving prisoners again); and (this is one of the controversial points) you might mess up your metabolism so that it's even easier to put weight back on and even harder to get it off again. And, of course, with all of that misery, you might just not be able to stick to it very long.

None of this is worth it, in my opinion, to feel miserable and maybe lose incrementally faster on the scale. As Shmead says, if you lose 4-8 pounds a month on 1500 calories/day, you won't necessarily lose more - or lose better - on 1000 calories/day.

That said, everyone's body is different, and there really isn't any single magic number below which no one should go (though 1200 is often bantered around as a rule of thumb). What some people do, that sounds sensible to me, is to experiment to find the most calories they can eat that will result in that healthy 4-8 pounds per month of weight loss. That experiment can take some patience, but when you are working on an eating plan for the rest of your life, spending a couple of months looking for the best plan for your body is worth it, I think.

I would also like to add from personal experience, that a person can lose weight on a VLC diet without ever going into the infamous and highly exaggerated "starvation mode" or ever having a stall or plateau.

I lost 190 pound by eating 1200 every single day for the first 3 months and then upping my weekend calories to 1500 for the rest of the weight loss stage. It took 16 months to lose the weight and I have now been maintaining for 17 months.

So, basically all I'm saying is that every one is different, and if you eat less than you burn you WILL lose weight....eventually.

"Starvation mode" is a very simple term used frequently. It is used for people who seem to not be able to lose weight, but completely ignores the huge population of people in malnourished countries and those with anorexia nervosa.

Personally, I think people would benefit from starting at a higher calorie intake and then reducing as they lose - but I can only speak from experience as someone who was 'somewhat/slightly' overweight - once a person is obese or morbidly obese, the stakes really change. A obese/morbidly obese person who is not bed-ridden has a surprisingly high muscle mass from carrying that weight, and they can afford to play the game a little different.

Again - what works for you

I agree I think everyones body is different and once you find what works for you calorie wise, just try to stick with it until you cannot lose weight anymore. Once you are stuck so to say, then you need to boost your calories for a week or two and cut back which is called Metabolic adjustment and it helps "trick" your metabolism to start working faster for more calories and then you cut cut back by 400-500 calories and your body is still working hard for less calories so you burn more and get out of your plateau. This comes from experience when I stayed the same weight for a month.

Oh, so-called "starvation mode" doesn't mean you can't lose weight--it just means that your metabolism slows down to try to conserve. A better term is probably "metabolic adaptation." Obviously people can continue to lose weight even if their body uses this strategy! Obviously people can starve to death! That's not the issue.

The issue is, if calories cut is too drastic (and that is completely individual--for some, 1200 might not be drastic) the body may slow down the rate of energy burn to try to conserve. The last thing an overweight/obese person wants is to slow down their metabolism even more...

Jay