Weight loss surgery and the 1,200 calorie stigma
thedarkwombat
Posts: 123 Member
This is more of a hypothetical question.
I see a lot of talk on here and the internet regarding the "dangers" of going below 1,200 calories. That topic in of itself has been done to death. I am not taking the position of suggesting anyone go below that amount.
At the same time though, I question it's genesis. We see people having LapBand and gastric bypass surgery and can barely eat 600 to 800 calories a day. Now, yes they are in a "doctor monitored" diet. But hypothetically, if someone was overweight and was able to eat 800 calories a day, saw their doctor once a month, got their blood and numbers ran every couple months and got enough protein and water, whats makes then so different from someone who had the surgery?
Has there ever been a case of someone who was eating 500 to 800 calories a day and got sick or died? Even on these websites if you try to calculate super low calories information they REFUSE to go below a certain "healthy" amount of food and warn you of the "dangers". Is this just an obligation of responsibility so some moron doesn't starve to death?
So I guess my question is, where did this 1,200 calorie stigma start?
I see a lot of talk on here and the internet regarding the "dangers" of going below 1,200 calories. That topic in of itself has been done to death. I am not taking the position of suggesting anyone go below that amount.
At the same time though, I question it's genesis. We see people having LapBand and gastric bypass surgery and can barely eat 600 to 800 calories a day. Now, yes they are in a "doctor monitored" diet. But hypothetically, if someone was overweight and was able to eat 800 calories a day, saw their doctor once a month, got their blood and numbers ran every couple months and got enough protein and water, whats makes then so different from someone who had the surgery?
Has there ever been a case of someone who was eating 500 to 800 calories a day and got sick or died? Even on these websites if you try to calculate super low calories information they REFUSE to go below a certain "healthy" amount of food and warn you of the "dangers". Is this just an obligation of responsibility so some moron doesn't starve to death?
So I guess my question is, where did this 1,200 calorie stigma start?
5
Replies
-
I don't know where the stigma or recommendation came from, but anorexia is a serious disease and people die from that. Personally I'm at zero risk of ever getting this disease. I love food a bit too much - duh
As for getting your blood drawn every two months and being monitored by a doctor who knows you're eating that little, personally I'd say that's fine. Me, I see my doc once a year possibly once every two years if that's the frequency she says. And I haven't had any blood drawn at a doctors office in years. I suspect a typical person wouldn't monitor their blood and other stats that often and doing so specifically for your diet would put a person in the doctor monitored diet category3 -
I don't know where the stigma or recommendation came from, but anorexia is a serious disease and people die from that. Personally I'm at zero risk of ever getting this disease. I love food a bit too much - duh
As for getting your blood drawn every two months and being monitored by a doctor who knows you're eating that little, personally I'd say that's fine. Me, I see my doc once a year possibly once every two years if that's the frequency she says. And I haven't had any blood drawn at a doctors office in years. I suspect a typical person wouldn't monitor their blood and other stats that often and doing so specifically for your diet would put a person in the doctor monitored diet category
same. This is my first Halloween actively focused on losing weight while also eating whatever I want and tracking calories. I'd be so sad if I was forcing myself to eat 1200 cals or to not eat sweets lol.0 -
Those who are on monitored VLCDs (such as my sister-in-law, who had surgery 13 months ago) are usually taking supplements to account for the nutrients they're missing from food. If a person chooses to go that route on their own, it's probably not going to end very well.13
-
There was a very obese man who fasted (no food at all) for over a year. But, he was very closely medically supervised and there was a lot of things that needed to be watched. He was given supplements of various nutrients that he was short in. Later in the process, he needed supplementation in different things. I can't recall which but I think potassium was one of the things he eventually got very low in.
Basically, it's very hard to do right. It should be done only under the care of very vigilant, preferably one with experience monitoring very low calorie diets and the problems they can cause. It's not something anyone should decide to do on their own. It would be unwise for anyone to advise someone else to do a VLC diet unless they're willing and able to take responsibility for the proper monitoring such a diet requires.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/0 -
I have two friends on lap bands and neither of them was told to eat so few calories. They were both given appropriate diets for the body size. One was on 1700 and the other about 1500 cals. The idea that lap bands only let you eat 500 odd cals is totally wrong. All it does is stop you eating so fast, you cannot stuff your face with food and blow your target in 5 mins. You can however easily eat thousands of calories a day just a lot slower.3
-
thedarkwombat wrote: »We see people having LapBand and gastric bypass surgery and can barely eat 600 to 800 calories a day.
The latest numbers I've seen are showing that a full 2 out of 3 lap band patients regain the weight. Which means they're figuring out how to eat a lot more than 800 calories a day.
7 -
Those who are on monitored VLCDs (such as my sister-in-law, who had surgery 13 months ago) are usually taking supplements to account for the nutrients they're missing from food. If a person chooses to go that route on their own, it's probably not going to end very well.
Unless they take supplements right?
0 -
how did the lap band surgery turn out?0
-
I'm a 5'11", 172lbs starting weight 23 year old male that has been eating 800-1300 cal (usually around 1000-1100) a day for 30 days so far. I weigh everything solid, measure everything liquid. I don't underestimate my food intake.
I do 60 push ups 4 days a week, 60 sit ups 4 days a week. Otherwise, I'm a couch potato. I eat pretty much the same thing everyday, although there are some variations. My macros target is 40% proteins, 35% fat, 25% carbohydrates. I usually don't hit those targets, I'm more around 3X/3X/3X.
I focus on eating less at supper, which was the meal on which I feasted the most. My typical dinners used to top 1000 calories easily.
I've never felt better. I don't feel tired, although I sleep better than ever. I don't have headaches. I don't have problems concentrating at work.
I'm not advocating that everybody should be eating sub-1200 calories, just saying that your mileage may vary. Listen to your body and use your brain properly.
I now weigh ~159lbs, some weight I've lost could very well be lean mass, I know. I'm targeting 150lbs. Target date is December 21st. Afterwards, I will increase to 1600 for 2 weeks, then 2000 for 2 weeks, then tune up 100 cal a week until I find my maintenance daily intake. That way, When I'm back at maintenance, I should still be around 150lbs.
I'm a long-time lurker of these forums, and I think I know the typical user well enough to know that I will receive hate-mail. I don't mind, don't even bother, your words are wasted on me.
PLEASE READ:
I am not a dietician, doctor, or voodoo shaman, don't take my advice, I am in no way accountable for your issues.
I am aware of food disorders.
I don't encourage rapid weight loss at the detriment of one's health, consult a doctor or stop your diet if you feel side effects. I would do the same.5 -
Yes, people have gotten sick and died on VLCDs. Anorexia is an extreme example, but others have died from nutritional deficiencies.
And that's the reason the lower limit is 1200. It's a bit arbitrary, but it was determined to be the lowest number of calories where a persom would still be able to get their nutrition in relatively easily. In other words, the lowest limit that's safe for the average person who doesn't know about nutrition and isn't going to plan out every meal to make sure they get all of their macro minimums, as well as their vitamins and minerals.
The only people who should be doing VLCDs are those who are monitored by a doctor, surgery or no.1 -
I'm a 5'11", 172lbs starting weight 23 year old male that has been eating 800-1300 cal (usually around 1000-1100) a day for 30 days so far. I weigh everything solid, measure everything liquid. I don't underestimate my food intake.
I do 60 push ups 4 days a week, 60 sit ups 4 days a week. Otherwise I'm a couch potato. I eat pretty much the same thing everyday, although there are some variations. My macros target is 40% proteins, 35% fat, 25% carbohydrates. I usually don't hit those targets, I'm more around 3X/3X/3X.
I focus on eating less at supper, which was the meal on which I feasted the most. My typical dinners used to top 1000 calories easily.
I've never felt better. I don't feel tired, although I sleep better than ever. I don't have headaches. I don't have problems concentrating at work.
I'm not advocating that everybody eating sub-1200 calories, just saying that your mileage may vary. Listen to your body and use your brain properly.
I now weigh ~159lbs, some weight I've lost could very well be lean mass, I know. I'm targeting 150lbs. Target date is December 21st. Afterwards, I will increase to 1600 for 2 weeks, then 2000 for 2 weeks, then tune up 100 cal a week until I find my maintenance daily intake. That way, When I'm back at maintenance, I should still be around 150lbs.
I'm a long-time lurker of these forums, and I think I know the typical user well enough to know that I will receive hate-mail. I don't mind, don't even bother, your words are wasted on me.
PLEASE READ:
I am not a dietician, doctor, or voodoo shaman.
I am aware of food disorders.
I don't encourage rapid weight loss at the detriment of one's health, consult a doctor or stop your diet if you feel side effects. I would do the same.
You don't encourage rapid weight loss, yet you've lose more than 2 pounds a week at an already healthy weight?3 -
I'm not advocating that everybody should be eating sub-1200 calories, just saying that your mileage may vary. Listen to your body and use your brain properly.
I don't encourage rapid weight loss at the detriment of one's health, consult a doctor or stop your diet if you feel side effects. I would do the same.You don't encourage rapid weight loss, yet you've lose more than 2 pounds a week at an already healthy weight?
Just read the post thoroughly.1 -
What stigma? Outside of this board, nobody is going to know or care how much you eat. There is no stigma.
Even if there was some kind of stigma, what is more important: your health or this stigma?
Do what the doctors tell you.
3 -
thedarkwombat wrote: »
Has there ever been a case of someone who was eating 500 to 800 calories a day and got sick or died?
Yes, it's called malnutrition and lots of people all over the world die every single day from it.
5 -
I'm not advocating that everybody should be eating sub-1200 calories, just saying that your mileage may vary. Listen to your body and use your brain properly.
I don't encourage rapid weight loss at the detriment of one's health, consult a doctor or stop your diet if you feel side effects. I would do the same.You don't encourage rapid weight loss, yet you've lose more than 2 pounds a week at an already healthy weight?
Just read the post thoroughly.
Exactly. I thought it was a very well written, well thought out post. No, he's not encouraging it. He's simply sharing his story. Every body is different and I fully believe this can work for some people and not for others. Thanks for sharing, ggirard27!5 -
I'm not advocating that everybody should be eating sub-1200 calories, just saying that your mileage may vary. Listen to your body and use your brain properly.
I don't encourage rapid weight loss at the detriment of one's health, consult a doctor or stop your diet if you feel side effects. I would do the same.You don't encourage rapid weight loss, yet you've lose more than 2 pounds a week at an already healthy weight?
Just read the post thoroughly.
Exactly. I thought it was a very well written, well thought out post. No, he's not encouraging it. He's simply sharing his story. Every body is different and I fully believe this can work for some people and not for others. Thanks for sharing, ggirard27!
Hello BZAH10,
I think you understood my post very well, thank you for your comment.
My goal with this post was to give feedback, as honestly as possible, to OP about eating less than 1200 calories per day. I am not within the 500-800 range he mentioned, but I thought my personal experience could give him some relevant information.
Also, English is not my first language, I am aware I've made several mistakes, including "food disorders" which should be "eating disorders". Meh.0 -
What stigma? Outside of this board, nobody is going to know or care how much you eat. There is no stigma.
Even if there was some kind of stigma, what is more important: your health or this stigma?
Do what the doctors tell you.
I tend to agree.
Though WebMD does suggest 1200 as a minimum for men and 1000 for women.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/low-calorie-diet
General recommendations for a low-calorie diet include:
Reducing calorie intake to 1,200 to 1,500 calories per day for women and 1,500 to 1,800 calories per day for men. Women should not restrict themselves to fewer than 1,000 calories per day and men to fewer than 1,200 calories per day without medical supervision.
Here's one fitness authority's comment on the 1200 thing:
http://johnbarban.com/weight-loss-fallacies-2lbs-per-week-and-1200-calories-per-day/
0 -
I've had the gastric bypass surgery and my dietitian assigned me a minimum of 1,200 a day, which I achieved within weeks of surgery. It was hard to eat enough, but I did it. Members of my post-surgery support group who were not as successful eating enough, suffered sometimes severe symptoms, the least of which was hair falling out. Sometimes re-hospitalization was required to rehydrate and get the patient back on track. I don't think 1,200 calories a day is in any way a stigma. It's a benchmark to prevent more serious problems.2
-
thedarkwombat wrote: »This is more of a hypothetical question.
I see a lot of talk on here and the internet regarding the "dangers" of going below 1,200 calories. That topic in of itself has been done to death. I am not taking the position of suggesting anyone go below that amount.
At the same time though, I question it's genesis. We see people having LapBand and gastric bypass surgery and can barely eat 600 to 800 calories a day. Now, yes they are in a "doctor monitored" diet. But hypothetically, if someone was overweight and was able to eat 800 calories a day, saw their doctor once a month, got their blood and numbers ran every couple months and got enough protein and water, whats makes then so different from someone who had the surgery?
Has there ever been a case of someone who was eating 500 to 800 calories a day and got sick or died? Even on these websites if you try to calculate super low calories information they REFUSE to go below a certain "healthy" amount of food and warn you of the "dangers". Is this just an obligation of responsibility so some moron doesn't starve to death?
So I guess my question is, where did this 1,200 calorie stigma start?
Not only are those people being monitored by medical professionals, they are also given diets by dieticians in order to obtain as optimal nutrition as possible on such low calories. Most people who just arbitrarily sign up for MFP and decide they're going to basically starve themselves don't have a clue about actual nutrition or the nutrients their body's need...and frankly, many of them are young women who have eating disorders and don't have any weight to lose in the first place.
If you search, you will find plenty of posts on this very forum of people eating too few calories and not getting proper nutrition and losing their periods, nails cracking and breaking off, hair falling out, etc....
0 -
So, on the flip side ... when I was in college, the girls in my dorm used to make and sign these "600 calories a day" pledges, basically trying to compete their way into an eating disorder. The site has a desire and an obligation to prevent that kind of disordered thinking from seeming normal. These forums would be absolutely appalling if the "pro-ana" crowd was allowed free rein here.
I think a 1200 calorie/day minimum is an excellent guideline for most people. Obviously there are exceptions.
My question is actually more around "calories eaten" vs "net calories". I seem to have a pretty low metabolism and I have a desk job with very little opportunity for movement. So I could imagine that once I get to my GW, my target net will be right around 1200. However, I can't imagine living on that low an intake. It seems to me that we should make a distinction between "sitting on the couch all day and only ate 1200" and "Ate 1800 and knocked out 600 calories of exercise with a long workout". The second seems far better to me.0 -
Most of the "pro-ana crowd" are much kinder and better behaved than many people who frequent these boards. For the most part, those girls are very sweet. He'd on themselves, but very good to others.
These threads you see that sound like anorexics are rarely started by actual anorexics. They're troll threads. Anorexics DO NOT NEED diet tips, lol. If there is one thing they know, it's how to lose weight. They also do not go around advertising their problems, especially in places where they'll be insulted. Their self-esteem is low enough already. They won't ask for insults.
When you see a thread giving textbook descriptions of anorexia and asking for tips on weight loss, know this: the person is trolling.
We see many posts that discuss unhealthy and disordered eating here...but they're always the kind of disordered and unhealthy things that make you fat instead of too thin. Having a disorder that makes you fat doesn't make one better than having one that makes you thin. It makes you their equal.
I just had to say my piece there and am not trying to pick on anyone.
It would be so nice if the overeaters could lop off half their problem and the undereaters could lop off half of theirs and everyone could switch and all would be healthy and happy. As it is, I guess we all have to work on our own issues.
If some anorexic girl reads this and decides to friend me, know this: I will tell you to eat. I will tell you that all the time. Because you should be eating. Everyone deserves to eat and be healthy and YOU are part of everyone. There are precisely two ways out of ana: recovery and death. Guess which one I support? (And guess which one I will encourage you to seek? Uh-huh.) Make no mistake! I support the person. I do not (NOT!) support the starving behavior. So, there's that.
0 -
I was on a 1200 cal food plan before I had WLS sleeve surgery from 2/1/12 till pre op liquid diet two weeks before surgery date of 6/11/12. The WLS nutritionist said to intake 1400 cals but I did 1200 pre op and lost 47 pounds during that time. After my WLS sleeve I struggled to get in 500 cals the first couple months but focused on protein 80-100 grams a day along with daily vitamins I took and still take to this day. I worked up to 800 cals and then 1000 cals to 1200 cals during my loosing weight stages post op and lost another 99 pounds post op. I started to up my cals to 1400 and higher to stop loosing and maintaining. I sometimes ate back my exercise calories burned but most of the time I didn't. It depends alot on what type of WLS you have with RYN there is more of a chance to have mal absorption issues from the foods you eat vs. VSG (sleeve) or lap band. They still have you take the same amounts of vitamins for RNY people as Sleeve people. My labs have came back great at 1 month post op, 3 months post op, 6 months post op, 1 year post op and then yearly after that.
0 -
Obviously we all read a different subset of threads but the ones I've seen with physical symptoms are amenorrhic due to too low of body fat and too much exercise, not really nutrition issues.cwolfman13 wrote: »If you search, you will find plenty of posts on this very forum of people eating too few calories and not getting proper nutrition and losing their periods, nails cracking and breaking off, hair falling out, etc....
And then way more common is the teen/20-something who is trying their first diet and is thinking they "broke" themselves from undereating for 3 days, mostly from forum misinfo.
I hear a lot about the anorexics here but have not met any. You'd think they'd befriend me, since I defend 1200 as safe. I really think they have pro-ana sites to hang out at.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Anorexia is much more complicated than eating less than a certain amount of calories. It is a control related disorder.
The short of it - anorexia is about control.
Yes, much of pro-Ana items are related to food, but more importantly there is a lot of hiding and not wanting anyone to take away the thing they can control.
The amount of calories one uses to lose weight won't necessarily indicate a disorder and is a highly personal and at times sensitive topic.
The 1,000 or 1,200 threshold, I think has to do with legal liability more than anything. Eating too little over a period of time can be extremely detrimental especially if not closely monitored by a doctor. Most can maintain the necessary nutrients to sustain life at calories over 1,000. Of course there are other factors that factor in, age, height, sex, medical conditions, etc.
Yes, for some long term nutritional deficits would manifest if one were not to get more than those minimum recommended calorie amounts and their body required it. But the human body is pretty darn amazing and will (without a disorder present) make one pretty miserable until they took in enough calories to be healthy.2 -
Well said.0
-
It is not a myth. It is a known fact that it takes roughly 1200-1500 cal for the average healthy female or male respectively to maintain BMR for the things our bodies do like breathing, digestion, cell function etc... That is if you are just sitting there. If the most inactive people would still use more than that. While it is true that a person who has any type of WLS will eat few calories initially any program worth its weight would not advocate that long term. It is true that you can get the vitamins and minerals needed from supplements (always necessary for RNY because of the nature of the surgery) getting them from food is much better and more satisfying. I had the vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). I am four months out and I currently eat on average 1000-1200 cal a day. I get most of what I need from food, which is how mother nature intended. I have lost more than 100 lbs, 60 of which is post the procedure. What the procedure did for me is allows me to manage my portions which were way out of control. I now get cues that I am full that I have not had in a long time from years of over eating. I feel like I am in control of the food instead of the food being in control of me. It is however possible for every person that has WLS to eat around their tool and many do. Many people know someone who has. I do. Just like all endeavors a person has to be committed to a lifestyle change and that is also true of people who choose to have WLS. I still pick healthy options, avoid sweets, and I exercise 4-6/week.
0 -
It can be done (my brother is a doc, and he says in severe cases they recommend about 600 cals and tons of supplements), but why would you want to? A friend had the surgery and ate as little as you suggest--she lost a TON of hair, messed with her fertility pretty badly, and she's started gaining a lot back. So you can go below 1200--just be aware there are consequences. Typically these VLC diets are only recommended where a patient will most likely die if they don't lose weight.2
-
Aside from the benefits of exercise, the 2 are exactly equal.zarckon wrote:My question is actually more around "calories eaten" vs "net calories".
... It seems to me that we should make a distinction between "sitting on the couch all day and only ate 1200" and "Ate 1800 and knocked out 600 calories of exercise with a long workout". The second seems far better to me.
You're going to lose the same amount of weight with both approaches.
Actually, my doctor says to ignore exercise calories, just eat at my goal.
1 -
It's not a stigma, it's science.thedarkwombat wrote:I see a lot of talk on here and the internet regarding the "dangers" of going below 1,200 calories... I question it's (sic) genesis.
... Has there ever been a case of someone who was eating 500 to 800 calories a day and got sick or died?
For an average-size woman, 1200 will let her get all the nutrition she needs.
Less than that, it's hard.
And yes, people have died from not eating enough, even here in the USA.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions