I admit I have not read this whole thread, but have read some of the posts from time to time.
What follows is my opinion only.
I come in on the side of not really believing in a "starvation mode" when talking about getting 1,000 calories or so. Yes, there is definitely a starvation mode in terms of real starvation wherein the body begins consuming its own muscle. BUT, I also believe that this is not going to happen unless you are getting very few calories (below 500?) for a very long time.
People today enjoy the "luxury" of eating a lot of food on a very regular basis. Not so in ages past.
I was recently reading a book written in the early 20th century concerning the years of World War I. It was a novel, but since it was written at the same time as the book was set in, I believe it gives a fairly clear view of things.
The thing that struck me was what people were eating. At one point, the one character (a woman) was looking forward to her lunch of one hard-boiled egg. No, this was not deprivation because of the war, this is what she felt was a good lunch.
Later, a family that included grown children were sitting down to a dinner of a roasted chicken. No, not one per person, but one measly chicken for something like 6 adults. Each person put in their request. The favorite portion was a wing. That was considered a good portion for an adult. When it got around the table and the only thing left were the legs, the one woman remarked that she would never be able to eat an entire chicken thigh.
I have long believed that people do not need to eat nearly as much as they do. I'm 5'6" and currently weigh about 160. If I were lean (and by that I don't mean skinny), I would weigh about 125 or 130. And I would probably need no more than 1,000 good-quality calories a day.
I do agree with the person who said that the type of calories matter. You can probably "starve" on 1,000 calories if it comes in the form of one slice of cheesecake (albeit low-carb). On the other hand, if you eat good protein, veggies, and a bit of fruit, 1,000 calories can be sufficient.
Here's another thing. We just visited a historic homestead where they had some of the people's clothing laid out on the beds or on dress forms. The dresses were tiny! This was the clothing that the people who lived in the home actually wore -- they were in the closets. And these people were in the very upper class. They had so much money, they didn't know what to do with it. They could certainly afford to buy as much good-quality food as they wanted. I don't believe they were starving.
Yes, people were smaller (boned) then, but not by that much. We're talking early 20th century. The one dress on the dress form must have been a 20" waist, if not smaller.
OK, I'm rambling. Suffice it to say, I don't place much credence in the idea of a starvation mode, at least as it's been bantered about. Also, I believe we eat too much, and probably 1,000 calories of good-quality food is sufficient for a person of my height. A petite woman would need less, and a large man would need more.
In my opinion.
|
Your metabolic rate = your resting metabolic rate (easy to calculate reasonably accurately) + energy consumed by your daily activities (must guestimate). 
Linear Mode
