Non-intentional starvation mode: explained by Jilllian Michaels

This explanation of why it is important to eat ENOUGH calories is (in my opinion) insightful and easy to understand, and  wanted to share. It's from Jillian Michaels.

It is absolutely 100 percent essential to eat enough calories! If you don't, it will destroy your metabolism. It's like telling your body that you're starving. If your body thinks it's starving, your metabolism will shut down.

Not eating enough calories will also force the body to cannibalize muscle and hold on to fat. The body considers muscle to be expendable during periods of starvation, and it considers fat to be necessary to insulate your organs for survival.

Finally, a deficit of daily calories will lead to a horrible cycle of yo-yo dieting. You'll starve yourself and end up losing muscle, and when you begin to eat the right amount of calories, your body will pack on the pounds in anticipation of another "famine."

What can you do to break the cycle? If you're a woman, set your calories at 1,400 steady — don't vary them. I almost NEVER say that, but in order to get your metabolism back up to speed and set your body right again, you're going to need consistency and time.

Stay on this calorie allowance and exercise at least five hours a week. You probably won't lose weight for at least four weeks, but the good news is that you won't gain either, and hopefully we will have gotten your metabolism back on track permanently. After about four weeks or so, you should start to lose weight, and then you can begin to vary your daily calorie intake — as long as you never drop below 1,200 calories. Now, go get something to eat!

"Stay on this calorie allowance and exercise at least five hours a week."

is that supposed to be 5 days a week?

Good post by the way. 

She has some good advice, BUT it doesnt work for everyone. I had to actually eat above maintenance(2500) and watch the pounds pack on to get my body outta the rut I was in. ITs not fun. IT took 7 months of hell, (but good eating) to get my metabolism going again. Now I can eat above maintenance and not gain.

Runningbuns,

No. She means 5 hours/week. She said that same thing on Oprah and Biggest Loser. :)

oooooooh! so she means exercise 5 hours a week?! lol I thought she was talking about eating too.  haha I was like "how is 5 hours of eating good a week going to help??"

Original Post by scaroppo:

Stay on this calorie allowance and exercise at least five hours a week.

 What the....? I just saw her on the Mike and Juliet show last week and she said to exercise for NO MORE THAN 5 HOURS per week.

So if you work out for only 4 hours a week it isn't effective? :P Haha..I'm j/k. Even though thats what I do. lmao.

I get her news letters too. They are very informative. :)

huh...i get her newsletters and i delete them without opening, because i assumed it was just a sales pitch to get me to sign on to her program.  maybe i'll start reading them ;)

did everyone here read the post about the Stockholm Solution (to eating disorders)?  it suggests that there are a whole range of potential psychological consequences to restricting eating (basically, the doctors at this clinic in stockholm have concluded that the psychicatric effects of eating disorders are effects of starvation, and not vice versa.  pretty interesting stuff!).

(ps: silentdeadlyrose, thanks for losing the bold, hey?)

Lmao. Bold gets you noticed....it stands out so it is most definitely read. I don't like following the crowd. Call it an OCD thing.

Oops....*smirks. ;)

Speaking on the ED thing...I know they are very skeptical on putting very underweight people on anti depressants they claim that they arent very effective dealing with being underweight certain chemicals won't be as effective or whatever something along those lines because I was taking zoloft before I went into an ED clinic and they were skeptical about keeping me on it as they doubted it would work, but they did and actually put me on more. :/

I know when I started starving myself I would break down crying more, I've always been depressed, but it was harder to hide my emotions then.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

huh...i get her newsletters and i delete them without opening, because i assumed it was just a sales pitch to get me to sign on to her program.  maybe i'll start reading them ;)

 Don't be lulled into a false sense of security - many of her newsletters ARE to pitch her stuff, or her program (Biggest Loser) or a success sotry from someone on her site. But every once and a while she makes me think and/or has pretty good advice. And this one was worth sharing - especially here.

Now lets just hope the guy who has been eating 600 calories for 8 months and claims that starvation mode doesn't exist reads the post....

"If you're a woman, set your calories at 1,400 steady — don't vary them. "

To me, that's still kind of low, especially if you're exercising regularly.  Maybe I'm rationalizing though.  I was shooting for 1800 today and I ate 2200.  But I did lift for an hour and walk for an hour.

Original Post by laura42:

"If you're a woman, set your calories at 1,400 steady — don't vary them. "

 

To me, that's still kind of low, especially if you're exercising regularly.  Maybe I'm rationalizing though.  I was shooting for 1800 today and I ate 2200.  But I did lift for an hour and walk for an hour.

 Exactly! I was thinking the very same. I mean, if you exercise the way she advised and ate that amount, I think starvation mode would be almost inevitable. Let's say you ran for an hour five days a week and burned 400-ish calories each time.. you'd have a net intake of 1000 calories each day. that advice.. sounds like a load of crap to me lol.

It IS low if you are exercising regularly. I eat WAY more than that. But my take is (could be wrong, but it's a common sense reading of the message) that her newsletters are written for the average reader. Some of whom, like us, utilize various tools and are looking for a lifestyle change rather than a fad diet. Others who are fueled by what they see (TBL) and are looking for quick or fad.

I suspect that a large part of americans on diets don't necessarily exercise regularly, and if they are eating less than they should be (e.s. under 1200) to "lose" faster, going from that less than 1200 to 1600+ may be too large of an increase. Meaning that the weight gain at that point is inevitable which would trigger unhealthy counter habits. So the 1400 is to get your metabolism reved for an average person.

I may have too high of hopes for the average CC user, but would think that those of us who exercise regularly  already know that we need more calories and at any rate know that over 900 calories of deficit becomes risky to the metabolism. Interestingly, I recently read a study which suggests that maximum FAT BURN is achieved by not exceeding a % of your BMR - in my case 750 calories. Meaning that over 750 calorie defiict and (according to the study) I could be sabotaging my efforts. My winter goal is going to be to keep my deficit around  500-750 calories and see what happens.

Good luck.  I am trying for a paltry 300 cal deficit, at least on the days I don't lift, and can't seem to hit it.  I don't need to drop pounds but want to burn more body fat.  I'm stuck right now.  At least it's jeans and sweater seaon. :)