Starvation, Calories, and Adaptations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve

Member
Staff member
I replied to someone's post in the Cohen's Forum accidentally. I hadn't realized that I was actually in the Cohen's room, a place I like to stay out of. But, just to put my reply into context for you, the original poster was unsure how she could lose weight for weeks and then, simply plateau. It triggered this from me:

Many people seem to struggle with the figuring out how large their calorie deficit should be and what their expectations as far as weight loss should be.

Let's pretend your maintenance is 2500 calories per day. This means, you are eating 2500 calories worth of energy per day and you are expending roughly 2500 calories worth of energy per day. Results in a net break-even and theoretically, there is no weight gain or loss. Right?

BTW, 2500 calorie maintenance level would be for someone roughly 170 lbs. The bigger you are, the higher your maintenance level is.

INFORMED individuals looking to lose weight will cut calories by some small margin, say 10-25%. As they begin to lose weight, their metabolism will slow, even though they are going about weight loss in an appropriate fashion. You can't continue losing weight forever at your original deficit. Your metabolism catches up to you and it slows to a point where you won't see results. This is a normal physiological response to having less tissue to support and move around as well as less food to digest and utilize.

In addition, there's an adaptive component to eating a deficit that many folks refer to as the starvation response. It mostly has to do with things like nervous system output, thyroid, insulin, and leptin hormones, and reduced spontaneous physical activity. If you really want to dive into the details of this stuff... just ask. And please know that mileage varies from person to person... some folks tend to be more sensitive to this than others.

At this point, though, where you're beginning to plateau... you could cut calories again to trigger another deficit based on your NEW maintenance level. You've left space for this sort of incremental and systematic downward shift in calories as you progress. Obviously at some point you can't keep cutting calories. As you get leaner and leaner, more advanced tactics can be brought into play say as cyclic/refeed type setups... but that's beyond the point of this post.

What I'm seeing around here is something entirely differently. Rather than taking a sane approach to creating a deficit... many people are doing the equivalent of punching their metabolisms in the face. Many people cut calories originally by some ridiculous amount. Still using a maintenance of 2500 calories, I find many around here will slash to 1200 right off the bat, or something ludicrous like this.

Why a 50% calorie slash seems OK to some of you I will never understand. Our bodies are very adaptive, finely tuned machines that are built to survive. And you better believe that you are sending many, many signals to your body that say, "Time to change physiologically because it looks like we are going through some hard times."

This should be about gently nudging the fat off. Not taking a jackhammer to it! Never mind the psychological repercussions of the jackhammer approach, which we won't even get into here.

Here's a little food for thought. One of the most often cited pieces of research in the literature pertaining to metabolism was the Minnesota Starvation Diet. Here, they slashed calories by 50% off of maintenance to realize the impacts STARVATION had on post war and Jewish victims of the Nazis, and how to best go about rehabbing them.

Last time I checked, concentration camp victims weren't the epitome of health and fitness! So how about we stop trying to replicate their nutrition conditions in our own lives?

The poster that triggered this response said she didn't understand how she can lose weight for weeks and then plateau. That is because she doesn't understand how her body works. She's not speaking the same language as it. Never mind the fact that your body adapts at its own rate... so you really can't set a fixed deficit and expect a fixed rate of weight loss over time. That's grossly oversimplifying a very complex system. Secondly... with or without adaptation... weight loss STILL wouldn't be a linear phenomenon. People aren't robots. They expend different amounts of energy every single day... so the deficit is always changing. People eat different amounts of food every day. Weight is comprised of more than fat... it's also made up of water, glycogen, connective tissue, muscle, bowel matter, etc. Some of these things can be going up while fat is going down... thus masking fat loss on the scale.

Again, it's not a linear process. It's important to align your expectations with the facts of your body.

For those of you who do things the least optimal way through starvation* are going to have a long, hard road ahead of you if your goal is actually looking and feeling good, and not just what the number on the scale says.

*realize that starvation does not actually mean eating nothing and being on the verge of death. i mean depriving your body of the basic macro and micro nutrients as well as sufficient calories in so that you are creating a below par atmosphere for your overall health and continued success.
 
Last edited:
Great information - thanks for taking the time to write it - and while some of us are slower to catch on to it than others - we're getting it eventually.

and worthy of a stick :D erm stuck... oh whatever -- you dared me to and I did it :D
 
Steve, you have just said, but worded much, much better, what I have spent the last year saying to every friend, family member and co-workers who keeps telling me they are on a diet and how much weight they are losing through their "all I've had today is a carrot and a Lean Cusine" approach. I don't know how 1200 & 1500 calories became magical "one-size-fits-all no- matter-what-your-starting-weight" numbers, but I know from previous personal experience and the experiences of those around me that what you've said is dead spot on.
 
Wow great information.I am one that likes to stay around the 1200
mark for weightloss then when I get to my satisfying weight I will find
the calorie range to maintain.Tammy
 
Wow great information.I am one that likes to stay around the 1200
mark for weightloss then when I get to my satisfying weight I will find
the calorie range to maintain.Tammy

Fine if that works for you. Most people, especially those with a lot of weight to lose, will not reach their goal weight before doing the damage and plateauing.

I never think it is wise to pick a random caloric intake that is not based on your current, personal characteristics.
 
I guess i don't really understand why people find it is necessary to go to such low calories to lose weight. I"m eating 2300 calories/day and losing 2lbs a week. It isn't difficult, i took off 250calories from maintenance and then i'm exercising 4 or so days a week, and i'm not hungry.

I spent a couple months closer to the start of my journey eating 1400-1600 calories per day but i didn't like how i felt ..i couldn't think straight..i knew something was wrong.

Now i just find it scary when someone that weighs more then i do eats 1200 calories/day and says they won't change anything and they are doing things in a healthy way...sigh.
 
My understanding is this: the best way to keep your metabolism from slowing is to eat frequently, like say (if you could possibly handle it) 6 small meals at 250 to 400 calories each (so a total of 1500 for a small person trying to lose weight, and 2100 for a medium-to-largish person) AND combining weight training. When I was 19 (yeah, I know, my metabolism has changed since then) I got to 135 lbs and 18.5% body fat (according to a pinch-test), from155 lbs (I'm 5'7") by cardio and weights--not dieting. Mind you, I was lifting pretty heavy weights and I was really strong! That was in 2002, and there was a lot of "new" research about muscle and metabolism. So when I reach my plateau, that's my gameplan. To lift heavier weights--it worked last time!
 
My understanding is this: the best way to keep your metabolism from slowing is to eat frequently, like say (if you could possibly handle it) 6 small meals at 250 to 400 calories each (so a total of 1500 for a small person trying to lose weight, and 2100 for a medium-to-largish person) AND combining weight training. When I was 19 (yeah, I know, my metabolism has changed since then) I got to 135 lbs and 18.5% body fat (according to a pinch-test), from155 lbs (I'm 5'7") by cardio and weights--not dieting. Mind you, I was lifting pretty heavy weights and I was really strong! That was in 2002, and there was a lot of "new" research about muscle and metabolism. So when I reach my plateau, that's my gameplan. To lift heavier weights--it worked last time!

1. Best of luck to you!

2. I do agree with eating frequently. However, studies are not conclusive that doing so speeds one's metabolism by any effective amount. I just think it is easier to get your macros in by splitting meals up into numerous, smaller feedings. The idea that it keeps your metabolism "revved" up is a myth though.

3. IMO, anyone and everyone should be lifting heavy weights, relatively speaking of course.
 
That's cute: )
Coming from you!

I just heard (regarding the metabolism thing with smaller, more frequent meals) that if you, say, skip breakfast, your metabolism supposedly can slow up to 20% that day because your body thinks food is scarce and is preserving reserves. Therefore, I guess, eating frequently assures you are "preceding as normal", and your metabolism is working like it should--instead of slowing down. In conclusion, you could be eating 1500 calories while dieting--but it is probably easier on your system if you spread it out throughout the day, rather than having 2 meals of 750 calories each. I don't really know, but it makes logical sense to me, so I'm trying to follow that. I guess I chose the wrong words with "rev" and such.
 
That's cute: )
Coming from you!

I just heard (regarding the metabolism thing with smaller, more frequent meals) that if you, say, skip breakfast, your metabolism supposedly can slow up to 20% that day because your body thinks food is scarce and is preserving reserves. Therefore, I guess, eating frequently assures you are "preceding as normal", and your metabolism is working like it should--instead of slowing down. In conclusion, you could be eating 1500 calories while dieting--but it is probably easier on your system if you spread it out throughout the day, rather than having 2 meals of 750 calories each. I don't really know, but it makes logical sense to me, so I'm trying to follow that. I guess I chose the wrong words with "rev" and such.

Oh no. You should do what is best for YOU. If eating small, frequent meals works, I am all for it. I recommend it actually. I was simply saying, the reason to do so is not so much to keep your metabolism boosted. That is a common myth that even many trainers go around spewing today, so I don't blame you.

Regarding your breakfast comment, your metabolism would NEVER drop by 20% in a day. The largest recorded reduction in metabolism was something like 30%. And that was after controlled, chronic, starvation level diets in a lab.
 
Yeah, I thought that was pretty high. What is up with all these magazines spouting out high %s? I get mad when I hear things that say, alcohol increases breast cancer risk by %30. I'm in the wine business. I am getting more educated about this type of thing, and I'm telling you--those numbers are absurd.
 
I don't read magazines. Only books.

And in order for me to believe something, especially when it comes to my body, it has to:

A) Be proven academically ()

B) Be proven empirically (see me :))
 
i used wishes page to calculate my maintainance level and it was around 2700 and that i should be taking maximum 1650 cals. now i'm 220 lbs, and 5,5 tall, and by some calculations i average between 1400 and 1600 cals. on some days i do eat around 1200 but these are rare, and i rarely go over 2000.

is this right? because so far its going great. i lose up to 2lbs a week. i totally lost 16 lbs since january 5.

Lena
 
BTW, 2500 calorie maintenance level would be for someone roughly 170 lbs. The bigger you are, the higher your maintenance level is.
I used a rmr calculator online and it estimate my ML is 2300+. Im 6'0 and weight 230. Is the calculator inaccurate?
 
so what is the calculation to finding a maintence point and a loss point how do you know how many calories to consume to loose?? Is it diffrent as you loose weight? Is it actually possible to loose weight and not keep slashing calorie numbers???
 
I used a rmr calculator online and it estimate my ML is 2300+. Im 6'0 and weight 230. Is the calculator inaccurate?

You are comparing apples to oranges. I said maintenance, and you are calculating rmr. ;)
 
so what is the calculation to finding a maintence point

First, there are no calculations that are going to be completely accurate. You are dealing with averages. The more variables that come into play in the equation, the more accurate the outcome will be, most likely.

For simplicity's sake, since we are dealing with averages to begin with, you can use 14-16 calories per pound of body weight for maintenance. Granted, some people are going to have a lower maintenance than this. Others will have a higher.

Or, you can use any of the online calculators, such as:



Or you can use something like the Harris-Benedict formula to determine your BMR, and then use an activity multiplier to figure out your maintenance.

The HB formula is:

Men: BMR = 66 + (13.7 X wt in kg) + (5 X ht in cm) - (6.8 X age in years)

Women: BMR = 655 + (9.6 X wt in kg) + (1.8 X ht in cm) - (4.7 X age in years)

For those of you who don't know, there are 2.54 cm in one inch. There are 2.2 lbs in one kg.

Once you determine your BMR from the above equations, you need to multiply it be an acitivty factor. BMR is comprised of the energy you expend at rest, doing things such as breathing, digesting, circulation, etc. Obviously, if we are calculating maintenance, we need to add in the energy we expend moving around, working, exercising, etc.

Hence, you have the following activity factors, which can be modified:

Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)

Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)

Mod. active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)

Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)

Extr. Active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or
2 X day training, marathon, football camp,

Aside from calculations, you could also keep a food log. If you maintain exactly what you eat and drink and all of the caloric values of each item for a few weeks, while tracking your weight, you will know if you are in a deficit, maintenance, or a surplus.... depending on which direction your weight is heading in, if any.

Follow me?

and a loss point how do you know how many calories to consume to loose??

Once you figure out your estimated maintenance, it becomes quite easy. You simply reduce from your maintenance by a certain percentage. I like to start with a reduction of 15-20% of maintenance. However, this is a generalized statement. It can vary depending on starting point. The more weight you have to lose, the more aggressive you can be with your deficit. The less weight you have to lose, the more conservative you should be.

Is it diffrent as you loose weight?

Yes, it is obvious from the calculations above, that your required calories depends heavily on your weight. The, as your weight comes down, so does your caloric requirements. Make sense? So, where once you were in a deficit, as the weight comes off, this same caloric intake may become your maintenance.

I will add, that calculating your calories shouldn't be something you do on a weekly basis. Figure out a starting point. Stick with it for a few weeks. Note your changes, if any. If measurements (weight, body fat, actual measurement in inches) are heading the wrong way, you know that your intake was off. Modify as you see results.

I always say, you are not signing a contract when you calculate your calories. You are merely finding a starting point. From it, changes will certainly occur over time, either due to metabolic slowdowns and/or miscalculations.

Is it actually possible to loose weight and not keep slashing calorie numbers???

Sure, as long as you progessively bump up energy expenditure through exercise. However, a combination of both reduction of consumption and increase in activity has proven to be the most effective approach for me.
 
Thanks man..........I printed that out cuz it's a lot to take in..........thank you for posting it, I know it took some time and i apprisheate it..........going to go get my calculator and figure this out man!!!! (I always sucked at math!!!)
later STAR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top