Getting Paranoid about 'eat back' calories.

Okay.  so after reading all the comments and debates regarding people eating back their calories after excercise or not I'm right paranoid about going below 1200 net.  But here's another question what if I eat 1150 calories one day.  Will that throw my body into starvation mode?  How long does it take a body to go into starvation mode? 

eating 1150 cals, even if you ate that everyday, will not throw your body into starvation mode. if you odn't have 1200 net cals one day, it won't hurt you. don't worry!

That 1200 isn't an exact number for everyone.  I don't think 50 calories less is a big deal, especially for one day, but just be careful that doesn't keep slipping downward.

Personally, I think that getting into starvation mode takes months - not just one day.  This might be a bit controversial, but from personal experience, I think the more exercise you do, the less your body will go into this "starvation mode".  Frankly, I don't really believe that starvation mode exsists - it hasn't for me, and I think its too exaggerated on the internet. 

The reason being, is that your lean musle mass (bones and muscles) will burn the same amount of cals every day (to maintain biological processes, breathing etc) - this is equal to your BMR.  The rest is burned through the movement of your body throughout the day (lean body mass and fat mass) - going to work, the gym, living etc.  The reason I think ppl talk about starvation mode is that when you do eat like 1000 cals/day - you get "lazy" - you move less throughout the day and avoid doing extra activity (because you are tired and moody) - this does cause you to burn less cals in the day - through less movement.  To have the real effects of a 1000 calorie diet, you need to stick to it for a few months - at that point  your body will eat away enough muscle mass to actually lower your BMR significantly (because your lean muscle mass will be over) - but this doesn't happen in a week.  The body is pretty resilient, but doesn't just shut down.

From your profile I see you are still at a high body weight. The eat-back debate is mostly about women of lower body weights.  It would not be unusual for a 130 pound woman to require 1500 calories to maintain, even when she exercises.  So if this woman wanted to weigh less than 130, if she ate 1200 and ate back 300 for exercise... she would not lose weight.  So these women are often confused as to why they are plateauing. ... this is why the debate.

At a higher body weight, you can eat much more calories and still lose.  An 180 pound woman will lose on 1600 per day.  I always ate the same number of calories a day, even when I didn't exercise. Someone on another post made the point that on your days of rest, your body still needs the same calories because your muscles are repairing.  So keep it simple.  Think of your equation this way:

If I eat x calories a day, and work out x hours a week, I usually see x pounds lost per week.

Starvation mode:  I was in a medically supervised "starvation mode" for 8 months...  it took about two weeks to get into "ketosis"... or starvation mode... HUGE dangers.. hard on your heart and vital organs.  I had blood work done every month and an EKG every 50 pounds (was MORBIDLY obese when I started).  My hair fell out in clumps, I was freezing all the time, and skin was VERY dry.  Coming out is ALSO difficult.  If youre body has been in starvation mode... as soon as you start FEEDING... it really holds onto pounds.  People who "cheated" in my group would have 10-12 pound weight gains per week (granted, it was water and generally flushed out after a GOOD week... but who wants that!)  This starvation was 800 calories a week from the time I wsa 343 pounds to the time I was 190 pounds.

IMO you won't go into "starvation mode" by accident. 

Also in my opinion, there is no reason to "eat back" calories.  When you figure out what your daily expenditure should be, you take into account any physical activity.  I do know that some people figure "sedentary" and then decide that every calorie that they exercise is added to their daily calorie count.

Acccording to my behaviorist/butritionist (once again... just my opinion... I do not have studies to back this)... that's not how it works...  It's not as simple as "I burned 500 calories; therefore, I eat 500 calories."  It's about how your metabolism changes over days/weeks/months as a result of exercise.

I agree with Tamara.  Its not as simple as calorie in, calorie out.

You'll know if your body is in starvation mode, generally. You start feeling VERY weak, and start experiencing symptoms as mentioned by Tamarascholtz.
And one day won't make any difference at all. And 1200 isn't going to put you into starvation mode.

So I guess I have been blissfully ignorant... I have been eating around 1200-1400 calories per day, and then 5-6 days a week exercising about 500-700 calories off. I am 5'2", weight today is 168.4. I have lost about 9 pounds my first month on CC, but not a reliably constant loss. I know it will slow down now that I've been at it awhile. My weight chart looks a bit zig zaggy. So... is this an OK amount to eat? Would I lose faster by eating less? Eating more? I'd love to lose a bit faster, but of course want to keep it healthy. Any advice?

I guess I don't understand why people are pushing all this eat back stuff.

If your deficit gets too large and you are losing too fast, then you need to eat more.  So, keep your deficit between 500 - 1,000 cals a day to lose 1 - 2 lbs a week.  Don't eat less than 1,200 cals a day.

and don't freak if you undereat 50 cals one day, just eat a little more the next day.  Starvation mode occurs over days and weeks of undereating.

When forum members talk about"starvation mode" they generally mean that the metabolism slows down so severely weight loss completely stalls... therefore you should eat more. I know of no study or obesity expert that says this phenomenon happens.  Ironically, in this same forum where so many people swear this happens, we admonish  young thin girls to eat more so they don't lose too much weight... why worry if their weight loss would just stall?

During World War II it was not unusual for Allied POWs and  Nazi concentration camps inmates to be fed 500 to 1000 calories a day, while forced to do hard labor.  As a result many people starved and died.  On average, normal-weight prisoners lost 60 pounds. During one 90-day death march 150-pound men were reduced to 80 to 90 pounds. Their calorie deficit was severe, but their weight loss did not stall.

My husband lost 20 pounds in about 26 weeks. Nice slow healthy pace. Then about a month ago he started getting sick and developed gall bladder problems.  While he was waiting for surgery, he had to strictly avoid fat, his weight fell like a stone. Got sick some more, couldn't eat. They rushed his surgery.  The antibiotics gave him thrush (mouth-tongue ailment) which totally threw off his tastebuds and his desire to eat.  The sudden restriction of calories did not cause his metabolism to stall... he dropped another ten pounds this month.

There is no question that your metabolsim slows if you cut calories too severely, studies have shown this to be true, your RMR can slow to about 15% if you cut to say 800 calories a day. Your metabolism slows if you become lethargic and less active, if you lose a lot of muscle mass, if you eat less your body spends less energy digesting food.  Even if you lose weight in the most healthy way, your metabolism slows... because you weigh less, and so you need fewer calories to sustain your weight. 

txmom6:  That your weight chart is zig-zaggy is exactly what it is supposed to look like.  Your body fat probably declined in a straight line, but your body's fluid levels probably changed... dehydrated or retaining fluid, or various amount of bulk in your system.  If you have lost 9 pounds in five weeks, that's  1.8 pounds a week.  This also is exactly what you might expect. The weight loss tends to be sudden at first, then slow to a more reasonable pace.  You are also currently eating about 8 calories a pound. This is also a number that will produce a respectable weight loss... 8 to 10 works, depending on your starting metabolism.

When people tell me they exercise off 500 to 700 calories, I am not sure how accurate this is.  With calories you eat, that is a number you can read on the side of a box.  Exercise machines are notoriously unreliable.  When you figure for this, do you subtract 100 or so calories you would have burned if you had instead been sedentary? Are you truely ahead 500 to 700 calories?

You do not want to lose faster because it isn't healthy.  For one thing, rapid weight loss can cause gall stones (not what cause my husband's problems).  Further, as you lose weight, your weight loss will slow... since you weigh less, your body needs fewer calories, so your deficit is less. Since you can't eat less than 1200, and I think you'll find you feel fatigued if you do more exercise on this calorie level, you're stuck... can't speed this up. I think you're doing just fine.  You could eat more, and still lose weight, but the rate of loss will be slower.

There is no question that your metabolsim slows if you cut calories too severely, studies have shown this to be true, your RMR can slow to about 15% if you cut to say 800 calories a day.

Shiptona, that is exactly what people mean by starvation mode from what i've seen around here....  thanks for explaining it so well.  It is dangerous to lose too fast... unless a doctor wants you to because other things are more dangerous (like preparing for a surgery or the risks of being tremendously overweight)

my thoughts.  except I thought it was slow about 15%... (shrug), either way, your metabolism slows from undereating. and yes, it's possible to actually starve by cutting to 50% of what you burn..

I want to correct what I wrote... not "metabolism can slow TO about 15%"... I should have said "BY 15%." You have a very limited ability to actually slow down your RMR.  

This is from obesity specialist  James Hill, PhD.: "But you will experience a temporary drop (5 to 10%) in RMR whenever you significantly reduce calories to lose weight."  This article otherwise says "more than 10%." I have seen another study that says 7 to 12% drop in metabolism from severe dieting.  Although this slowing is significant, it is not enough to stall weight loss.

to shiptona;

Thanks so much for the valuable and clear explanation. It certainly makes sense and comforts me to know that I am really doing all I can in that department... because of a CC challenge, I have also learned to look at percentages of food groups, fiber, water, etc., so I guess this is about as fast as it should get. (I also need to do more about strength training, etc.)

 Now I just have to stay focused and persistent.

It was very nice of you to take the time to succinctly explain a process that until recently I thought I knew quite a bit about! Always learning...

There is a study that was done by Baylor medical that showed the human body can produce starvation hormones as soon as 72 hours of deprivation has occurred. But the deficit needed to produce the hormone is different for each person based on all sorts of criteria. You know how studies are...they are not all that reliable unless they have been done hundreds of times with the same results. I don't think 50 cals here and there will really throw you off.

I am assuming this thread was pulled forth because another poster was interested.  Since the original question was posed I have done lots of research and have grown substanially in my thinking. 

I believe that 'eat back' is a good thing although I'm not convinced it has to be calorie for calorie.  while shiptona has stated ( and I respect her beliefs) that eat back is specfic to this site, I beleive it is such common knowledge that it is 'built in' to other sites.  In other words I know of no site conversely, that does not take into account your activity level when determining calries needed. 

Also, the difference between pow's and us is the goal.  If you have seen pictures ( and I have extensivley in my upper year law courses) they have no muscle left at all.  Thus, if you want to eat 500-600 cals a day go ahead, of course you will continue to lose weight becasue the body will cannibalize itself in order to survive. 

If however, your goal is to lose fat, well the body cannot  eat more than two lbs of fat per week (generally the only exception I have heard is when people are very obese)  another indication of the truth of the starvation mde pehenomean is the mere fact, and everyone knows it that people close to their goal cannot just simply slash calories to 700 a day, and lose the last ten.  I also believe that the 1000 cal deficit comes into play here, because as people are smaller, and their calorie need diminish,  the smaller your deficit gets  - as a result of this the slower the weight loss. Again these people do not jsut drastically cut.  

Now these are only generalities, because people who are very obese can and have had greater deficits.  One of the reasons is that doctors feel that they can afford to lose some lean muscle this is particularly true if they are bringing in protein and doing strenthg training to maintain the muscle (ie doctors will allow that person to go on a medically supervised starvation diet).

For most of those I believe these rules do apply.  Also, I beleive that you cannot be so correct as to say 1200 for one and not maybe 1150 for another or 1300 for another to trigger a slowing of the metab that ultimately will result in muscle loss, and fat gain in the long run.. Because humans are not neurons and there are differences in genetics. 

I for one do not mess with the 1200 rule.  Why?  Because I have seen more women try it, and fail getting larger and larger, than I have ever seen succeed.  It's just like the link between smoking and cancer.  Everyone has someone they know or they've heard of beat the odds.  The exception to the rule, does not mean the rule does not generally apply.  For me it's just not worth losing an extra 200 cals x 7 days to take the chance that I am not the exception.  That's about 1.5 lbs a month I guess but still, I won't take the chance. 

I wonder for Shiptona because she has not yo-yo dieted in the past if this made a difference and because she seems to have had good muscle tone.  Although, Tamara on the other hand (correct me Tamara if I'm wrong) had dieted in the past, and the eat back rule doesn't seem to apply to her.  OTOH, tamara did start with a high body weight, and the reaserch I have done indicates that the body will release excess fat on low cals when the weight is high.

I lost all my weight from my first pregnancy and must say this is the largest I have ever been.  When I lost the 50 lbs I put on I did so by having about a 1000 cal deficit.  When I was younger I never gained weight because I portion controlled excercsed and RARELY ate any form of junk.  So for me I can relate to both scenarios.  I must say though, that the starvation mode 'theory' is exactly how I put on the final and last ten lbs that led me here.  

Finally, I have also heard of a slowing of the metab at 20%.  So for me that would be over 300 cals. 

   Hi everybody!

   I'm tagging this post/thread... Thanks for all the tedious typing you've done... ;-)

   I'm struggling with these thoughts now, as my loss rate is slow, and I'd like to safely and sanely increase it... You've shared a lot and it's helped me try to think this all through for my own needs :-]

   I'm going to see if I can find a nutritionist, (for free, if possible :-), to help me personally, but I needed the help you've shared here to know what to tell and ask her!

   I found one years ago, so I'm hopeful I can again.

   I'm glad I didn't miss this! Thank you!!! ;-)))

Chrissae, I don't think we disagree greatly...if at all.  My issue is when people are dieting at 1200, small women close to their goal... if they eat back calories they might not lose weight, since this might put them up to their natural maintenence level.  Thus, if they eat back and plateau, the advice they are given is they should eat more, since plateaus are "caused by eating too little." (I disagree with this). I maintain on about 1500, even when exercising. So clearly, if I dieted on 1200, and ate back 300, I would not have lost weight... or lost extremely slowly.

I mention the POWs etc, only to point out that the metabolism doesn't completely stall... it is of course a terrible way to lose weight.  150-pound men do not lose 60 pounds without losing a lot of muscle... that is understood.  They likely had little body fat to start with.

I have not yo-yoed significantly, been up and down 20 pounds, several times over the years... was 35 pounds heavier in my 20s.  The idea that yo-yo dieting slows metabolism, has been disproven, so I don''t know how that factors into this discusion.

There are any number of medical websites and books that say the minimum for women is 1200... no mention of this being "net" calories. The Mayo Clinic and National Insititutes of Health, for example simply state that 1200 is the minimum.  I can also point to studies (have three from John's Hopkins University alone) that put obese people on 1200 calorie diets with aerobic exercise, and no mention of eating back calories. The book "Secrets of Skinny Chicks" profiled 21 lean women, calories eaten, calories burned through ecercise, weight and so on. Several of the women had a "net" of under 1200.  Their programs were evaluated by a doctor, dietician, and trainer. None was told to "eat back" calories, though there were minor criticisms for such things as eating too much processed foods etc..

When obese people diet, they can afford to lose more muscle (have more muscle to carry this weight, and no longer need so much) and also they lose less muscle, and compared to when lean people eat too few calories.

I don't know about the 20% figure. There is a distinction between slowing RMR and slowing metabolism.  Metabolism as a whole takes in your RMR, your activity level and calories required to digest food.  So you can slow RMR say 10%, but also seriously slow metabolism if you sit around all day, or don't eat, so you are not digesting anything.

To determine your deficit, you have to start with a theoretical number... what CC or some site says someone with your stats needs to maintain your current weight.   But when comparing people of exact-same fat free mass, the RMR can vary by hundreds above or below  the "mean," (I have a copy of this study). So unless you actually tracked your calories before you started dieting, you don't know your true deficit.  You also don't know how many calories you really burn through exercise... this would take into consideration your RMR plus activity, to come up with an hourly number. Since we are unsure of the RMR... and we are not sure if you work out with the same intensity as CC presumes,  then eating back calories, is pretty imprecise. Really, the only three pieces of information we know with certainty are:

1) how many calories we eat (fairly close anyway)
2) how many hours of exercise we do a week
3) what the scale says.

We agree to the same things, just are coming from different directions . I agree no one should eat less than 1200 a day and no one should lose more than 2 pounds a week (less for smaller women). The only way you know if you have your deficit right, is really by what the scale says. So if you follow the 2-pound-a-week rule, you've got it covered. I also agree that obese people should diet at higher calories numbers... usually 8 to 9 calories a pound works well. So a 200-pound woman  should not be dieting on 1200 calories... for a whole lot of reasons, it makes sense for her to eat more.

Do you have a link for that  Baylor College study... sounds interesting. .

   WOW, shiptona! I'd love to research the stuff you've studied, if you had any handy links... :-) OK with me if ya' don't, or would rather not.. I'll just enjoy reading what you share with folks, so patiently! I appreciate it.

   What you say rings true with me- esp. about Dr. supervision, without eating back, and small women...

   I want to hope I can exercise enough-safely- to increase my loss rate from 1 lb. a week to 2 lbs. average. 1200+a little, on weight training days-new!- is as low as I can go, and at 183, I'd like to lose better. I've lost almost 24, 12 in first month, now less than 5 a month... At my weight, I feel I should lose better than that...

   I've been 107 once, with a little yet to still lose then, (5'2.25", 45 years old soon, small frame), so my estimated goal is 106.5, and 100 total lbs. to lose. Almost a quarter gone! 16 weeks tomorrow :-)

   Please keep posting! I'm learning! (Old dogs- can we still learn new tricks, after all?) lol

*bump*