Exercise, calories and "starvation mode"

Jamey

I read through most of http://www.caloriesperhour.com last night and it's a very good site for weight loss, which is something I'm currently trying to do (dropped a couple of stone so far).

While reading through the information about optimum calorie deficit (to lose weight but avoid putting your body into starvation mode) I had a question, which I've asked on their forums but nobody has answered so I'd like to ask the same thing here because I know some of you guys are clued-up with this stuff.

I understand that having too big a calorie deficit can can cause the body to go into starvation mode but I'm unclear as to whether deficit calories that come from exercise still count?

I'll give some hypothetical numbers to maybe illustrate what I mean a bit more clearly.

Let's suppose our hypothetical man has an RMR (resting Metabolic Rate) of 2000 calories per day (just to make the maths simple).

If he wants to lose weight without going into starvation mode he needs to enough calories to stay at (or above) 75% of RMR, which would be 1500 calories per day of food. Giving a deficit of 500 calories or 25%, which should allow him to lose weight without his body going into starvation mode.

If he exercises every day and burns off another 500 calories each time, he now has a 1000 calorie difference between consumption and expenditure, which is a total deficit of 40%.

Will his body go into starvation mode now that he has a 40% deficit or do the extra 500 calories he's burning per day not count as deficit because they're exercise, which keeps the metabolism going?

DaveyL

I think all energy burned counts - the body won't differentiate what type of activity it's come from.

For what it's worth, Anita Bean in her excellent Sports Nutrition book recommends only a 15% difference between calories in and out for sustained fat loss.

fatbee

"Starvation mode" is a populist over-simplication of the consequences of chronic calorie-deficit. There simply is no clear-cut threshold on one side of which the dieter succesfully and "healthily" loses weight, but on the other side of which he/she fails to do so because of "starvation mode"

It just isn't that simple - sadly. And any health professional who tells you otherwise is either painfully ignorant or deliberately misleading you.

From the first moment you make your body use stored fat as fuel, you have, to some extent, entered starvation mode, you wouldn't lose any weight at all if it were otherwise. These changes are hormonal, very profound, and only just begining to be understood.

But simple "in v. out" calculations usually fail to acknowledge that much of any "weight" thus lost will include lean body mass (i.e. muscle) and, if practised over a protracted period, mass from internal organs!

The bottom-line is that the more weight you seek to lose and the longer you spend trying to do it, the more difficult and less successful this approach will prove to be. Ms. Bean's 15% will almost certainly work well for the 1st Cat roadie who's gained a couple of pounds over Christmas. It equally almost certainly won't work for the unfit sedentary individual who needs to shed several stones.

And widespread acceptance of the one-size-fits-all myth that it's just "calories in and out", plays a huge part of our current epidemic of obesity and type II Diabetes.

Jamey

Yeah, calories per hour say the same thing (well 15-20%).

I think the reason you can go to 75% of RMR is because RMR is so low and doesn't take any activities into account.

Jamey

Fatbee - thanks for that info. So from your point of view, what would you advise me to do?

I currently weigh 20 stone and I'd like to lose a lot of that. I'm 6'4" so I reckon I'll take it down to 15 stone then decide how much further I need to go.

I count the calories I eat every day and I count the calories I spend as best I can (I realise the numbers you get from calculators are only estimates) so how much deficit would you advise me to have?

Can I get away with 1000 calories less? Or even more? Whaddya reckon?

beancounter

fatbee wrote:

"Starvation mode" is a populist over-simplication of the consequences of chronic calorie-deficit. There simply is no clear-cut threshold on one side of which the dieter succesfully and "healthily" loses weight, but on the other side of which he/she fails to do so because of "starvation mode"

It just isn't that simple - sadly. And any health professional who tells you otherwise is either painfully ignorant or deliberately misleading you.

From the first moment you make your body use stored fat as fuel, you have, to some extent, entered starvation mode, you wouldn't lose any weight at all if it were otherwise. These changes are hormonal, very profound, and only just begining to be understood.

But simple "in v. out" calculations usually fail to acknowledge that much of any "weight" thus lost will include lean body mass (i.e. muscle) and, if practised over a protracted period, mass from internal organs!

The bottom-line is that the more weight you seek to lose and the longer you spend trying to do it, the more difficult and less successful this approach will prove to be. Ms. Bean's 15% will almost certainly work well for the 1st Cat roadie who's gained a couple of pounds over Christmas. It equally almost certainly won't work for the unfit sedentary individual who needs to shed several stones.

And widespread acceptance of the one-size-fits-all myth that it's just "calories in and out", plays a huge part of our current epidemic of obesity and type II Diabetes.

So, how best is the unfit sedentary individual to shed his several stones?

bc

(unfit sedentary individual)

bahzob

I started cycling to lose weight and, after a while suceeded. (from touching 15stone to 11stone now) The last few pounds were certainly the hardest.

Used Fitday tool http://www.fitday.com/ (I downloaded the standalone program) to help with this and wish I had done so much earlier. I thought I was pretty informed about food/exercise but it was only using this tool that I was able to make sense of why I was/was not losing weight.

Its a bit fiddly (and it helps if you are a bit of a geek) but the discipline of recording everything you eat/bit of exercise you do should give a real insight not only on how to lose weight but to keep it lost.

superlightweight

Jamey, at 6'4" and 20stone you would need over 3000 calories a day just to fulfill your basic metabolic requirements i.e. to stay alive!

Do you know what you current daily calorie intake is?

liversedge

eat as little as you can. exercise as much as you can realistically sustain. always exercise just before you eat. mix it up and your body will never be quick enough to adapt.

if you're exercising loads you can afford to eat. If you're not you can't.

anita bean can keep her 15%, life is too shoirt - do you really want your diet to take over 2 years?

Good Luck with the weight-loss - inspire us!.

liversedge

superlightweight wrote:

you would need over 3000 calories a day just to fulfill your basic metabolic requirements i.e. to stay alive!

nonsense. bmr is what you need to maintain your weight.

Jamey

liversedge wrote:

superlightweight wrote:

you would need over 3000 calories a day just to fulfill your basic metabolic requirements i.e. to stay alive!

nonsense. bmr is what you need to maintain your weight.

Actually it's more like RMR multiplied by 1.2, provided you just sit on a chair all day and do nothing else. As soon as you start to move around it goes up further.

superlightweight

liversedge wrote:

superlightweight wrote:

you would need over 3000 calories a day just to fulfill your basic metabolic requirements i.e. to stay alive!

nonsense. bmr is what you need to maintain your weight.

ermm, so you obviously don't know what BMR is?! Basal Metabolic Rate is the number of calories required by your body to perform all the basic functions of living if you did nothing but lie in bed all day, i.e. keeping your heart, lungs, brain, liver etc etc. working.

As Jamey is approx 193cm and 127kg his BMR is going to be approx 2400 calories a day - yes i over guestimated on my first post! :oops: I've guessed his age as 30 - hope i'm not too far wrong

So assuming he is relatively sedentary at the moment his metabolic rate would be around 3000 - the number of calories he needs to maintain weight.

So really Jamey shouldn't reduce his daily intake below 2400 calories, particlarly if he is going to increase his activity levels.

peanut

Jamey good luck with the weight loss programme. I am just a mear 17.5 stone but I have to lose weight urgently as not only do I have a missing disc in my spine but my liver is starting to pack up . :shock:

Mt weight has yo-yo'ed for 10 years. Even when really fit 10 years ago I struggled to get down to 15 stone. i remembered how hard it was and how little I ate

Maybe we could start a blog here and help each other along and perhaps others will join us . Record our weight loss and exercise weekly. The software training program sounds interesting

brownbosh

Well there are days when ive had a 3000 calorie deficit and i always have at least 500. Its working for me - increasing muscle mass , cycle fitness and endurance and lost 3 stone and 3 pounds since christmas. I was 19 stone 10 am 6'4'' tall and started with a 33% body fat. Allowing for weight loss and changes in muscle size density im now 18.6% fat an 16 stone 7 pounds and will be looking for another stone. Now racing and testing and doing 100 milers. I have never fealt better both health wise and fitness and say (from personal experience) the size of the deficit matters not provided your taking on enough carbs protein and vits/mins to continue to perform well and stay healthy. If you get tired etc its time to eat moe of the right stuff. I realise everyone is different but the one thing that holds true for everyone is that you must learn your own body and its limits and work to those.

st68

different diets work for different individuals a low carb diet sheds pounds of me quickly but it doesnt work for my partner it makes her listless & tired but i only diet for short periods of time so my body never gets used to it or sheds lean body tissue but i do train regularly & have a very active job landscaping & have found out that if i shed to much it makes me feel ill the key is to experiment & find what works for you

Alibran

I've lost five and a half stone over the last couple of years, and I'm successfully maintaining my weight at the bottom end of the "ideal weight range" on the BMI scale. It was all done through calorie counting, and calories in vs. calories out, which IMO is as complicated as it needs to get, worked very well for me.

I started out with around 750 calories a day deficit (which represents a loss of around 1.5lb a week) for the first 2 stone lost, then changed to 500 deficit for the next 2 stone, and finally to 250 deficit. I counted the calories earned through exercise towards my daily "allowance", and my body seemed very happy to lose the weight. I certainly never felt hungry.

From my experience, over time, your body will enter what's commonly known as "starvation mode", and basically will learn to get by on the amount of food you're eating. Most people try to deal with this by eating less, which works up to a point, as long as you're prepared to really starve yourself. My experience was that the opposite was most effective. When my weight loss slowed, I countered it by eating more, and the weight started to drop off again.

Again, from personal experience (but other people have also agreed with me on this from their personal experience), it's better to eat close to the number of calories you need to maintain your weight, and accept losing weight slowly. This is kinder on your body, easier on your head (because you don't have to deny yourself things you enjoy eating), and will make it easier to maintain your new, lower weight in the long term (because you've never drastically changed your eating habits). It will also make your body less likely to use your muscle for energy. I know that most people would prefer to lose the weight as quickly as possible, but you have to ask yourself whether your goal is to lose weight for the short term or lose weight for the rest of your life.

peanut

brownbosh wrote:

Well there are days when ive had a 3000 calorie deficit and i always have at least 500. Its working for me - increasing muscle mass , cycle fitness and endurance and lost 3 stone and 3 pounds since christmas. I was 19 stone 10 am 6'4'' tall and started with a 33% body fat. Allowing for weight loss and changes in muscle size density im now 18.6% fat an 16 stone 7 pounds and will be looking for another stone. Now racing and testing and doing 100 milers. I have never fealt better both health wise and fitness and say (from personal experience) the size of the deficit matters not provided your taking on enough carbs protein and vits/mins to continue to perform well and stay healthy. If you get tired etc its time to eat moe of the right stuff. I realise everyone is different but the one thing that holds true for everyone is that you must learn your own body and its limits and work to those.

thats an amazing weight loss well done.

How much cycling did it take ? I'd be interested to know your training regime

brownbosh

Started out at 3 hilly rides of 20 miles then built up to doing 1100 miles in april. Now down to about 170-200 miles per week as intensity of efforts has gone up. So started at about 4.5 hours per week up to a few months of 14 hours per week now to about 9-12 depending on the race/tt and day off schedule.

TheGreatGatsby

I count calories every day in an attempt to get down to below 10 and a half stone but have found that I have reached a plateau and the weight is no longer shifting. To counter this I am steadily increasing my mileage but keeping what I eat the same but I'm finding that I'm just knackered and so the intensity of the rides is lower thus lower HR and cal burn but more perceived effort. So then lower cal burn means having to ride for longer to get the same results its a viscious cirlcle I think and was just wondering if once in starvation mode does the body just stop losing weight no matter what you do ie eat less move more?

How long does it take once in this starvation mode for catabolism to occur? I am always a bit dubious about this so called 'starvation mode' maybe because it seems stupid to think the body has a mode like a TV or something. But I guess there comes a point where the body just will not lose any more weight and hangs on to what it can to function -is that true or just non sense aswell?

Gats

alzeb

lots of useful websites here! at long last,i cant seem to shift the weight and am angst to cut out more food as i dont want to get the knock!ive elimated any trace of fat,yesterday i reverted to bread,fruit and veg all day,cut out a further 300 calories and still olny lost 200 grammes within the 24 hrs-im now wondering if other sports are better for weigt loss,like running,swimmig or rowing,ive a foot injury but im prepared to run through it if needs must

Alibran

TheGreatGatsby wrote:

I count calories every day in an attempt to get down to below 10 and a half stone but have found that I have reached a plateau and the weight is no longer shifting. To counter this I am steadily increasing my mileage but keeping what I eat the same but I'm finding that I'm just knackered and so the intensity of the rides is lower thus lower HR and cal burn but more perceived effort.

Have you read my comments in my post above re: starvation mode, where I explained that eating more helped me when I reached a plateau, and it has also been successful for other people? I believe it works because your body "thinks", "Food has increased, starvation period is over, it's OK to get rid of some fat now." Of course, you don't want to increase to the level required to sustain your current weight. You could try increasing by a couple of hundred calories a day for a few weeks and see what happens.

Alibran

alzeb wrote:

i've eliminated any trace of fat

This is really not a good idea. Our bodies need fat to function, especially if we are pushing them hard. Good fats from vegetable oils, nuts, avocados, etc, are an essantial part of our diet.

ut_och_cykla

I'm with Alibran on this one. Slow weight loss is teh kindest and most sustainable method. Clearly if you are grossly overweight you didnt get like that overnight and in the beginning you could lose more , faster. But going below the BMR + exercise kcal requirements for the body you should be might not be the way to go. Most could still eat 1500-2000 kcals a day and lose weight but only slowly. teh trick is to eat less energy and burn more. Eat far too little and teh body will hang on for all its worth to what it think it needs I suspect. Even POWs and anorexics get by on ridiculously little adn still worked/exercise. they suffered terrible ill health due to vitimain insufficiencies etc but they didn't die from lack of food alone - proof enough for me that teh body can and will adapt to input.

alzeb

ive 2 more races left that i want to do then i will have to stop racing as ive decided that i need to reduce to 1,500 caloreis a day in order to curb this disgusting weight gain,i can no longer be seen in public imo.UNLESS i stick to 1,500 calories a day and still train up to 3 hrs a day.i have no one else to turn to for advice as i dont want people that know me to despise me even more,im not being self indulgent but the weight gain wont stop

after years and years of eating the same and staying uder weight.,how can this be happening?

Alibran

alzeb wrote:

UNLESS i stick to 1,500 calories a day and still train up to 3 hrs a day .... the weight gain wont stop

after years and years of eating the same and staying uder weight.,how can this be happening?

I'm a woman, 5ft3 tall, 7st7, I cycle for 1.5-2 hours 5 days a week (I don't call it train because a lot of it is at a very easy pace). I eat between 2100-2300 calories a day, every day, and I don't gain weight.

Assuming you're taller and heavier than me, the amount of calories you need to maintain your body weight will be higher, so you can afford to eat a lot more. If you're gaining weight on very few calories, IMO you are either seriously underestimating your calorie intake (which is extremely common) or you have something wrong health-wise and should see a doctor.

azzerb

www.johnstonefitness.com

Yes, it's mainly a working out and get bulked site. However, there is a lot on cutting, and how to do it with minimul muscle loss (muscle loss occurs during starvation mode as having lots of muscles uses lots of calories, and if the body isn't getting enough, it seems sensible to remove the muscle). Some of the concepts and idea's used on there can be transfered across to weight loss in cycling.

Oh and John Stone's transformation in a matter of months is incredible. I would have sworn photo shopped if i hadn't read anything about the site etc. Or even two different blokes.

alzeb

[
Assuming you're taller and heavier than me, the amount of calories you need to maintain your body weight will be higher, so you can afford to eat a lot more. If you're gaining weight on very few calories, IMO you are either seriously underestimating your calorie intake (which is extremely common) or you have something wrong health-wise and should see a doctor.[/quote]


yes i am taller,i was suffering renal failure from dipping out of the healthy weight range,but now crave that back as ive just almost slipped into ahealthy weight range,i do eat more than you but i train 18hrs a week inc racing,plus swimming for about an hour........ive counted calories obsessionally for 22 yrs ad i promise not 10 calories extra will pass my lips ad am careful to restrict if i drive anywhere etc,it took me so log to gai weight,well,18moths for 2kg that it seems i may have a thyroid problem if ive suddely gained one and a half pounds whilst begining to restrict again.

if oly i had the cofidence to experiment that more food=weight loss,see what horror tomorrow brings

ut_och_cykla

Alibran wrote:

alzeb wrote:

UNLESS i stick to 1,500 calories a day and still train up to 3 hrs a day .... the weight gain wont stop

after years and years of eating the same and staying uder weight.,how can this be happening?

I'm a woman, 5ft3 tall, 7st7, I cycle for 1.5-2 hours 5 days a week (I don't call it train because a lot of it is at a very easy pace). I eat between 2100-2300 calories a day, every day, and I don't gain weight.

Assuming you're taller and heavier than me, the amount of calories you need to maintain your body weight will be higher, so you can afford to eat a lot more. If you're gaining weight on very few calories, IMO you are either seriously underestimating your calorie intake (which is extremely common) or you have something wrong health-wise and should see a doctor.

Think alzeb was on here a while ago with a 8% body fat level. Think your final phrase - something wrong - see a doctor ... is spot on. Anyone eating only 1500kcal & exercising 3 hours a day is not within the range of what would genrally be called normal

fatbee

alzeb wrote:

"i've eliminated any trace of fat"

I agree with Alibran, alzeb. This could be somewhere between counterproductive and disatrous, if you keep it up. You need fat to keep your endocrine system (i.e. hormones) in balance. Without fat, your body's production of things like Human Growth and IGF-1 will drop off. These are crucial in losing weight, building muscle and anti-ageing processes.

And talking of "dropping off", low/no fat will screw your testosterone levels and see to it that that's about the only screwing you will be doing for a while.

You have been warned!

alzeb

blnak

Alex_Simmons/RST

alzeb wrote:

im a bird anyway and i havent done this hormone thing since i was about 16-

DISASTER HAS STRUCK-i <snip>

hit 49.2 kg and deeply ashamed,i felt obscene at the race saturday.(165cm tall)

You need much more than dietary advice my friend.

Suggest you consult a professional sports physician (and then perhaps also a sports psychologist).