Weight loss surgery and the 1,200 calorie stigma

Options
thedarkwombat
thedarkwombat Posts: 123 Member
edited October 2014 in Health and Weight Loss
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?
«13

Replies

  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    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
  • ana3067
    ana3067 Posts: 5,623 Member
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    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.
  • FIT_Goat
    FIT_Goat Posts: 4,224 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    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/
  • BeardedMike
    BeardedMike Posts: 52 Member
    Options
    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.
  • thedarkwombat
    thedarkwombat Posts: 123 Member
    Options
    malibu927 wrote: »
    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?

  • lloydrt
    lloydrt Posts: 1,121 Member
    Options
    how did the lap band surgery turn out?
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    Options
    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.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    ggirard27 wrote: »
    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?
  • ggirard27
    ggirard27 Posts: 11 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    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.

    malibu927 wrote: »
    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.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ggirard27
    ggirard27 Posts: 11 Member
    edited October 2014
    Options
    BZAH10 wrote: »
    ggirard27 wrote: »
    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.

    malibu927 wrote: »
    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.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Options
    Kalikel wrote: »
    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/
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    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.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    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....

  • silentKayak
    silentKayak Posts: 658 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories