About "Starvation mode":

On one hand it kinda makes sense that if you're taking in too few nutrients and calories your body would adapt to hold onto what it has causing a halt in weight loss. Our bodies have such an amazing ability to adapt!!

But on the other hand what about people who actually are starving? They're skin and bones and eventually will become so thin and they will starve to death. No "plateau" for them. Is it just because they are the extreme example of starvation and the amount that the average dieter would "starve" themself isn't enough for actual starvation to happen?

"Starvation mode" doesn't mean you stop losing forever. It means that additional calorie restriction may not lead to proportionate weight loss.

For example, if you have a 500 calories a day deficit (you eat 500 calories a day less than you burn), your body may well burn a pound a fat a week to make up that difference and provide you with the energy you need.

If, however, you go to a 2000 calorie a day deficit, your body will probably NOT start burning 4 pounds of fat a week to keep you at the same energy level. At that extreme deficit, it will do things like make you tired (so you burn less), make you fidget less, lower your body temp half a degree--things like that. You will still burn fat, just not as much as you hope. You can try to exercise more to increase the deficit even more, but at some point your body won't let you have the energy you need to do that.

Some people report that after enough of this, their body will seem to switch to all "non-fat burning" methods for a while, though it can't and won't do this forever.

To sum it up: starvation mode doesn't mean you won't ever lose weight. It does mean that you will do a lot more suffering to lose more or less the same amount of weight/

IMO, and this is just my experience and my opinion, the "starvation mode" is GREATLY exaggerated. I lost my weight by eating 800-900 calories per day, and working out every day. I lost about 170 pounds in 10 months. At no point did I really slow down, it was a nice steady loss. But that's just my experience, and what worked for me.

Schmead's input is much closer to the truth than what we "understand" starvation mode to be. Its noth that your body "freaks out" and holds onto cals/fat whatever, cuz it thinks its starving. The body will actually *slow down*, metabolically, in order to operate more efficiently on what few cals it is given. So for instance, like Schmead said, your basal temp will decrease, because keeping your body warm takesmore calories. (have you ever noticed that people who are dieting down are always complaining of being cold?)Your menstruation might shut down, because that is a non-essential function that takes more calories. Things such as that.

Has anyone lost the last 30 pounds to reach his or her goal by drastically cutting calories?

I'm asking because I've recently cut my calories and am consuming around 1,000-1,200 calories a day. I'm eating really healthy though and taking multivitamins to make sure my body has all the nutrients it needs.

I still exercise, just not as intense as I use to. Whenever I exercise hard, like I like to do :P, I end up gaining weight. I'm like a muscle house covered in a nice layer of fat. Now if only I could cut the fat to show off the muscle!

I just do not want my body to go into starvation mode. I just want my body to give up fat!!!

My stance is... if you're not hungry, you're fine. If you're purposely ignoring hunger panes, you need to eat more. But if you're eating 1000-1200 worth of really low calorie (and highly nutritious) food and your body isn't yearning or whining for more, you'll probably be okay. But be super observant of your weight loss, extra hair falling out, menstruation problems... any signs what-so-ever of malnutrition. Your body might decide it'd rather use up the muscles instead of the fat, unfortunately. So keep an eye on it!

I am not a doctor though.

I do recommend eating more because you can afford to but don't force yourself if you're satisfied.

Metabolism can slow, but it can't stop. There are a lot of ways that calorie restriction can result in fewer calories being burned and can turn down the rate at which calories are burned. One simply may be the person is more prone to exhaustion and therefore may be moving less.

If you eat less, you may tend to move less. To some degree this compensation can occur without you realizing it. Changes in sleeping patterns, even respiration rates and body temperature can occur, these are changes you may not notice.

There's research that supports the existence of metabolic decline with calorie restriction, and there's also research that suggests it's not universal. Those that have found effects, generally have found that the metabolic decline is worst (most likely to be measureable) in yoyo and repeat dieting. If this is your first diet, you're likely to have a higher metabolism to start with than you would if this was your 20th.

This is true of starvation also. Folks who have faced starvation repeatedly, have lower metabolisms than folks experiencing their first famine. The body cannot tell a naturally occuring famine from a voluntary crash diet.

Some of the experts recommend gradually decreasing your calories, rather than drastically decreasing, so that you can maintain the highest metabolism as possible. Others say that isn't really important (especially if you don't have a very long history of yoyo dieting).

Food journaling can help you see how you're body reacts to different calorie levels (though each experiment really needs to last several weeks, better yet months).

Other people find that food composition plays a role (there's been a lot of anectdotal reports and some research evidence that low-carb diets are less prone to metabolic decline that high-carb diets. That is, in general, people are more able to see weight loss stalls o higher carb very low calorie diets, than on lower carb very low calorie diets. I have proven to myself with my food journal, that to lose the same amount of weight, I can eat about 500 calories more on low-carb eating than I can on higher carb eating. Also the weight loss is more linear on low-carb (on high- carb, I'm more prone to weight fluctuations).

I had the same experience but only 50# lost. Food journaling is a very effective & easy tool in discerning trends.

As I've lost weight and read more and hung out on this site, I've become less of a believer in this starvation mode thing. The fact of the matter is, if starvation mode was as serious as easy to slip into as some people imply, no one would become anorexic or severely underweight. Of course, it is unhealthy to restrict calories so drastically or starve yourself, but I just have my doubts that anyone with a significant amount of body fat could go into this "starvation mode". I do know, however, that I lose more when I eat plenty and well. My body doesn't respond as readily when I have a really low day (which is usually an accident).

Oh, the dangers of oversimplification!

The famous "starvation mode" just refers to the body's metabolic strategies to conserve energy if the going gets tough. Obviously, if you don't eat enough for a long enough period, you will die. The body's strategy can't fix that--it exists to give you a little extra time to try to find food.

Meanwhile, if you don't have balanced nutrition, and if you don't stay fit, your body will be using not just fat, but also muscle, to keep you going. This is why anorexics can end up with damaged hearts, brittle bones, and hair falling out, not to mention that their periods stopped long ago.

The point is that you need to have balanced nutrition, and you need enough protein, carbohydrate, and good fats (in reasonable amounts) to maintain health. As long as this is the case, then one doesn't have to worry about dips below 1200.

However, and this is a big however, every individual is different. One person may be happy with an average of 1200 solid, nutritious calories, while someone else might be feeling too hungry at 1500.

Many people on 3FC have had their weight loss slow down when they kept calories low, and found they lost faster with more. But for every one of these, you can find a member who had the opposite happen. You have to try different things and see what works for you.

Jay

Not true, at all "starvation mode" explains (to be blunt) why anorexic and starving people take so long to die. Again because "starvation mode" isn't about metabolism stopping, it's about metabolism slowing down.

A person at a healthy weight would die in weeks, not months, if they maintainede the same caloric need that they started with. But exhaustion causes the person to move less. Biological processes slow down and become more efficient (nothing wasted. Even eyeblinking rates slow down).

One of the simplest components of the starvation mode phenomenon is "eat less, move less." We adopted a fat cat. A very fat cat. We thought it would be "easy" to get her to a healthy weight - all we had to do was feed her less.

It's not been that simple. She lost a couple pounds, but it's been a struggle to get any more off. The less we feed her, the less she moves and the more she sleeps. You can't just stop feeding a cat, because too drastic a drop in food can cause kidney problems and other severe health issues.

Body temperature and body temp regulation can also drop during starvation. (which reduces calorie needs). It's why anorexics and starvation victims develop soft "fur" on their body - to insulate them so that their bodies don't have to work as hard to maintain body temperature.

It's important to remember that metabolism is not static. Outside factors as well as internal ones change the equation. Calories in, calories out - sometimes assumes that the calories out is static and unchanging, but this is not true. Even what you eat can affect the "burn rate." Temperature affects it (it takes more calories to stay warm in winter, that is if you're not spending all of your time indoors).

There are thousands of factors that can slow metabolism. There are thousands that can speed it. Learning the factors that apply to you is a lot more complicated than blaming or dismissing "starvation mode."

It isn't that starvation mode doesn't exist, it's that it's a lot more complicated than it's generally taken to be (on both sides of the argument as to it's validity).

I appreciate everyone's feedback.

In the past I lost weight when I ate less. Then around 200 pounds I lost the last 15-18 pounds by not only eating less but cutting down on carbs. Then for the last year I maintained, and got really into exercising. I was afraid of restricting my calories and going into starvation mode, but the only time I lost weight was when I focused on my diet & restricting carbs/cals.

I'm still concerned about my body going into starvartion mode, but I'm going to go back to what worked for me and that was eating less, and few carbs. I'm eating about every 2 hours. I snack on mushrooms, red pepper, carrots, and other vegetables. I tend to use fruit as a treat. At lunch I eat 1/2 a sandwich with lots of chicken & whole grain bread (also a treat). I also use whey protein to make sure that my body is getting plenty of protein.

I haven't had many times that I've felt hungry, just right between afternoon snack & dinner, but that's normal. I haven't really been tired and my sleep schedule is the same. Everything seems fine with my body, but I'll keep close tabs on how things progress.

Thank you!

When you say you are afraid of restricting your calories, I'm not sure just what you mean by that. There's restricting calories - and than there's RESTRICTING CALORIES.You CAN SAFELY restrict calories provided you don't restrict them too much and provided the calories you ARE consuming are highly nutritious. You needn't be concerned about *starvation mode*. Losing weight DOES require restriction. There is no way around that. You can't eat whatever you want. You will have to cut back. You will have to be mindful and diligent.

You're trying to create a calorie deficit by taking in LESS calories than you and your body are burning so that your body turns to your stored FAT for it's energy supply, thus you LOSE that EXTRA fat.

Getting back to the restriction thing for a minute - losing weight, keeping it off, being healthy - well yes, you'll have to munch on veggies for snacks instead of chips and pretzels. You'll have to have egg white omlettes or oatmeal (or other healthy fare) for breakfast instead of waffles, pancakes and bacon. Lunches will have to be a large salad instead of multiple slices of pizza, dinners - soup, fish and veggies instead of fettuccine alfredo - so yes - there is this *restrictive* component. But I love eating this way now, and don't look at it as a burden or a hardship, because nothing was as restrictive as being overweight.

Sounds like you've got things under control for now and are working out a balance. I look forward to hearing of your continued progress.

I would really recommend you journal, weigh or measure your food and count calories for at least a few weeks. It's really the ONLY way to get accurate information about what you are eating, especially at first.

Thanks for your suggestions! I do appreciate them!

At least for now I'm not counting calories anymore.

I was counting calories, almost daily for the last 6 months. It did not help. I've lost more weight not counting calories. But since I did all that counting I have a really good idae of how many calories I'm consuming around 1,200.

This week I've dropped 3.4 pounds. I went from starting out at 186.6 to weighing in at 183.2 today. Best part is-it doesn't even feel like I'm dieting! I just feel like I'm eating healthy.

So for now I'm going to continue not counting calories. I always stressed about it too much or just would find ways to cheat with it.

Now its all about the healthy foods.

I also exercised for 30 minutes last night. It isn't my 2 hour exercise sessions but it was very enjoyable and I got a nice little bike ride and worked my abs. It made me happy.

Thank you all again for your help. This has really made it easier for me to focus my goals!