Thread: how low before starvation kicks in

It depends on your body, how hard you exercise, and I think how low your bodyfat is. I can go into ketosis by skipping two meals some days. No, honestly, it's true, I've tested.

Some signs of starvation response and metabolic shutdown are: drop in body temperature, sense of being cold (a deep cold within, which no heater or Polarfleece will displace), cold or numbness in toes and fingers, complete lack of energy.

You don't WANT the starvation response. Not only does it suck, it will screw up your body and thyroid. What you want is glycogen depletion, which is different. For that, you are best to lower carbs for your lower days (you don't even have to eliminate them -- about 30% carbs would do it, and higher protein) and increase carbs on your higher calorie days.

That's the point of the refeeds: to keep the inner lizard from shrieking "Ohmigod! Famine!", shutting down all fat metabolism, storing instead of burning all possible calories, and setting the Urge to Binge in motion the next time you see food.

great post Akateros

thank you for your info. also, am i right to say that going to 30% carbs and about 1600 calories 2-3 days, then 2000 and nomal amount of carbs on the 3rd or 4th day will get me the weight loss? also, does it matter what carbs i eat on the normal day b/c im wondering if fruits are ok. Thanks a lot.

I don't get why you would WANT to experience a starvation response. Fat loss needs to happen SLOWLY in order for you to be healthy/happy. Rapid weight loss leaves you looking/feeling like crap anyway, so what would be the point of that?

Peace.

I think she was saying that she's trying to avoid going into "starvation mode" while still losing weight, but it wasnt worded well.

what happens if you dont eat anything for 2 days in a row?

That is a good starting parameter for weight loss, although you will need to see what your personal response will be.

As for fruit, don't go overboard with it, although if you are not cutting for a contest, a couple pieces are fine. Reason is, again, the glycogen thing. The majority of the carbs in fruit aren't processed like normal carbs for quick energy, but stored by the liver. Can interfere with your fatburning, if you go crazy on fruit. (On the other hand, there are some people who cut for contests on NOTHING but fruit and protein -- their bodies respond really well to the fruit. I am not one of those people, myself, unfortunately. I love fruit.)

You will want to make the majority of your carbs the good, fibrous, slow-burning ones -- the standard sweet potato/oatmeal/barley/brown rice deal. A bit of whole wheat pasta or seriously wholegrain bread should be fine too.

Of course, you could do what I do and cut with carb cycling, where you're allowed pretty generous amounts of fruit.

Peace.

Originally posted by Akateros
That is a good starting parameter for weight loss, although you will need to see what your personal response will be.

As for fruit, don't go overboard with it, although if you are not cutting for a contest, a couple pieces are fine. Reason is, again, the glycogen thing. The majority of the carbs in fruit aren't processed like normal carbs for quick energy, but stored by the liver. Can interfere with your fatburning, if you go crazy on fruit. (On the other hand, there are some people who cut for contests on NOTHING but fruit and protein -- their bodies respond really well to the fruit. I am not one of those people, myself, unfortunately. I love fruit.)

You will want to make the majority of your carbs the good, fibrous, slow-burning ones -- the standard sweet potato/oatmeal/barley/brown rice deal. A bit of whole wheat pasta or seriously wholegrain bread should be fine too.

Me too, I love fruit, but can't have it on this cutting diet. I have had it on one before and did well. But it was limited to apples or melons. I did have two strawberries today! Yummy things!

Sara - Why would you not want to eat anything for two days in a row? That's when starvation would kick in!

Actually, jaim, it's not quite so simple as that. The real "starvation response" -- the metabolic and adrenal changes -- is induced by longterm insufficient calories. Fasting for a few days may -- usually does -- have some short-term effects, but if you are on the whole well-nourished, your system will return to normal shortly after you resume normal eating.

my moms boyfriend fast's(SPL?) for 4 days straight each year(only allowed water) and dances at da same time, part of our native culture n bein spiritual or something, i dont really follow it that much but i wouldnt wanna go 4 days without eatin and dance all day in da freakin hotass sun, proud 2 b pure blood native, but not dat damm proud! J/K my mom's tryin 2 get me 2 do dat 2 this year, after i said no she started usin my ego against me! sayin i prolly couldnt do it! could do it if i wanted 2, just dont wanna do dat 2 my body, my main concern is loosin strength, jus wounderin tho... what kinda effects would dat have on my muscles if i did do it?

You'd probably suffer a little catabolism, and a certain temporary loss of strength -- but you'd recover. After all, one can go without training for a week or two, or eat crap over the holidays for a similar length of time, and then as soon as you get back in the groove, within another week or two you're fine. In the grand scheme of things, it's only a few days of your life.

If you do the fast, it won't be about your physical health. I've never found fasting to be of any benefit that way, even for the famous "cleansing" effects. But a mindful fast, after getting over the first day of hell, can be a pretty amazing spiritual experience.

I thought catabolism can start RIGHT AWAY which is why they reccomend eating every 2-3 hours...

Well, yes, but there's catabolism, and then there's catabolism. You are not going to become a wasted shadow of your former self in three hours, or even in three days, of either fasting or insufficient eating. Like I said, one notices some effects, but they are temporary; both physical strength and metabolism seem to return to par within a week or two of regular eating and training.

But 4 days is a long time

well then i have another question... What if ( someone went about 250 calories below maintenance, and did cardio(another 250 calories lost totaling 500 calories) and did that for 2 days straight, then..going to maintenace calories the 3rd day and repeating. Does it take atleast 2 days for the body to realize and slow the metabolism ( the reason i would up the caloires the 3rd day) or does it happen based on the amount of calories reduced ( ex: reducing calories to 500 below and losing 200 w/cardio = 700 calories, making the metabolism slow in only one day). What i am basically asking is does the metabolism slow down faster if the calories you reduced becomes greater, or is it based on a certain amount of time where as long as you come back up a few days later, the body wouldn't have changed the metabolism. I hope this makes sense. If anyone can help it would greatly be appreciated.

Okay. You are not going to get starvation response in three days, however you go 500 calories before maintenance. Keep it up a couple of months steadily, and yes, you will. That's part of the objective of keeping calories/carbs changing, to keep your body from muttering to itself "Well, I guess it IS famine then, rather than a chance shortage of food for a couple of days. Better lock down the hatches."

Keep in mind (and this sort of answers your question, too, jaim) that as animals, early humans evolved to go through days, one or several in a row, when the hunting and gathering really wasn't going too well. Some people, admittedly on the fringe, speculate that human health really started to go wrong when we figured out how to keep a more or less constant supply of food going... back in late Neolithic times.

On cardio every day, I wouldn't keep that up too long if I were you. Bear in mind "chubby aerobic instructor syndrome" -- do more cardio, and your body will adapt to do cardio with less stress, which if you are a body, means with less energy burn. Result: it takes more cardio to achieve the same result, and eventually cardio loses its usefulness. Other than that, for short-term losses, increasing cardio rather than dropping calories is usually the better choice.

And yes, the more drastically you drop calories, the more likely it is that your body will respond poorly. Not necessarily in longterm effects, but certainly in the short term. Which is the other reason for carb cycling; go well below maintenance for three days, and you pretty much drain your cells' reserves of instant energy -- and your workouts, your whole life, indeed -- begin to suck, mightily. Eat more for a day, and a nice little stash of glycogen gets socked away again.

so...what you're saying is...if i eat lets say 1500 calories ( low carb or not) for 2 days, then go to 2000 calories for one day and repeat the cycle, i would have no problem with my metabolism slowing down, even if the increased calorie day is one day and then back down again?

Swimgirl - what are you stats that you're so concerned about starvation and metabolism? I am just curious

im 140 5'9" and want to lose 5 pounds of fat and gain muscle too so my wieght probably wouldn't change.

obviiously i can only do one or the other right now so it would be fat loss

So, can't do cardio bc your body will adapt, can't diet bc your body will adapt, how the heck are we supposed to lose fat?

And no, carb cycling is not right for everyone so..

Just don't get into a pattern, is all, I've found. That is, if I do long runs for all my cardio, every couple days going out for an hour, eventually not only do the runs get easier, but they seem to lose their calorie-killing effectiveness. If, however, I break them up -- long runs, short interval runs, slope running, a bit of whacking at the heavy bag when I get tired of running -- then not only is it less boring and easier on my aged knees, but if I am eating consistently every day, I will lose weight -- which suggests that I'm burning more calories.

Same with diet. I have good success with cycling (it doesn't, actually, seem to matter whether it's carbs or calories, although of course it's easier to lower cals if you lower carbs as well) but if I'm not, then I can, for instance, go for a bit losing on a deficit with a fairly consistent nutrient breakdown and calorie count. Then I'll stall -- but doing something different will often break it. That can be anything from varying the macros (such as going lower carb for as long as I can stand it, which isn't very long), or if I've been spreading carbs evenly through the day, changing up so that I eat them all in my first three meals...

That's all. The body adapts to a constantly-recurring thing, so you just break the pattern when you find things grinding to a halt.

Ok, thanks!

Swimgirl...by your stats, it doesn't seem like you have a lot to lose. I'm 5"7, and my ideal weight is 142, I think 140 is good for you....