I'm confused. Can you really eat too little?

kerimanuel

I've been reading all this stuff on here that says you have to eat your minimum calories set by MFP or your body will hold on to what you do eat. I just read the Step by Step guide to losing weight with MFP and it doesn't mention that at all.
I'm 5'4, 47y/o, female. I started this beginning of the year at 132lbs. My goal is 115lbs. MFP says my calorie limit is 1200. I usually eat less than that. 800-1000 range. I work out 5 times a week.
My confusion is why do I have to eat 1200 if I'm satisfied eating less and will my body really hold on to it because it thinks I'm "starving"? I'm certainly not starving. Also I thought losing weight was just eating less calories than you use, period!
Can someone enlighten me? Do I really need to eat more? I feel like I won't lose at all if I eat more. Thanks in advance for your help.

yarwell

Your fat reserves might be able to supply say 600 cals a day, so if you use 2000 and eat 800 there's a deficiency which may be met by something slowing down. That may be OK for a day or two but probably not a month.

The 1200 minimum is supposed to ensure adequate nutrition, not just energy (calories) ie 1200 cals of varied food is likely to meet your needs.

trianglevision

I'm pretty sure it's physiologically impossible to gain or retain weight if you are eating at a calorie defecit...maybe at first but eventually it will give in and start metabolising itself for energy.

jkal1979

Your calorie goal already has a deficit built in. If you ate the 1200 and didn't exercise you would still lose.

Starvation mode is a myth, but by eating a small amount and exercising may cause other damage in the long run, such as more muscle loss, bone density loss, hair loss, brittle nails and fatigue. You need to be eating more to make sure that your body is getting the fuel that it needs to run and get the nutrients that it needs.

NoelFigart1

Okay...

If you are dieting to lose fat, technically you are starving. The whole POINT of fat reserves is to have something to keep you alive during times of little food. Whether that little food is coming by choice or famine is something your body doesn't understand.

That said, is your health in danger if you eat fewer than 1200 calories? The jury is very much out on that one. It is EXTREMELY difficult to get appropriate nutrition on fewer, true, but it is possible. At your height 115lbs is at the low end of slender.

If you're not hungry, you're not hungry. Though, I wonder, what's your hurry? Are you an actor training for a role?

Need2Exerc1se

http://authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode/

This article has a good description of the dangers of eating too few calories.

Sinistrous

To bluntly put it, google pictures of "Starving children" and then google why their bodies end up looking the way they do, then answer that for yourself.

Yes, you can eat too little. Do not do it.
Good luck!

TimothyFish

Yes, you can eat too little. It isn't safe to eat less than 1200 for more than a few days. Since you are also working out, you should also be eating to fuel your workouts as well. That might put you at an even higher number, depending on length and intensity of your workouts.

However, eating less than 1200 will not cause your body to retain weight because it is trying hold onto it. The only way for the body to retain weight when you are eating at a deficit is for it to die, and even then it doesn't retain it very well.

erickirb

essentially it is difficult to get the min protein, fat, vitamins and minerals on a diet less than 1200 cals. Even at 1200 cals there is very little wiggle room for non nutrient dense foods to hit these nutrients.

So not getting enough of some or all of the above can lead to a larger % of your loss coming from lean muscle, not fat; malnutrition, weak nails, bad skin, loss of hair, poor functioning digestive system, etc.

brianpperkins

First of all, with only 13 pounds to lose a 1/2 pound per week goal is probably appropriate ... and that is less likely to produce a 1200 calorie daily goal (quick math puts it at around 1300 NET calories to lose that amount per week). Without an open diary, all we can do is guess at what you really eat in terms of calories and macronutrients along with how much you're burning through exercise.

Based on your current settings, MFP is recommending 1200 NET calories per day. You eat 800ish .... so 400 below what most national health services in the western world recommend as a minimum intake for women to get basic nutrients before factoring in any exercise. You're then working out 5 days per week ... widening that deficit and making it less likely that you're providing your body with the basic nutrients it needs for healthy survival.

When you fail to give your body what it needs, it then looks internally for the vitamins and minerals you aren't eating. You'll see it affect your hair, nails, and skin. What you won't see is it affecting your bones and internal organs. The risk here isn't that you'll eat too little and your body will somehow store energy that it isn't receiving in the first place. It is that you'll eat too little and your body will have to damage itself to keep the most vital organs running properly.

KombuchaCat

For your age, height and weight I honestly don't think you need to be trying to lose weight at all. This might sound harsh but I think what you really need it to reassess your body image and be realistic about goals. Maybe see a nutritionist or counsellor. I just don't know where to start with what you wrote...

jacksonpt

Ultimately, goals will determine this. If you body comp goals (body vat vs lean body mass/muscle), then yes... eating too little is something to think about. If you only care about scale weight, then no, not really. At least not over reasonably short periods of time. If you tried to sustain yourself on 500 cals for months and years, then you may run into issues. But doing it for a few weeks to a few months to lose some weight isn't a big deal.

Note: we're only talking about calories here, not nutrition, though the 2 do go hand in hand to some degree.


As far as not losing if you eat more... that might be purely psychological. Inaccurate logging/estimating might also play a role... as could patience, or a lack there of.

Ultimately, to lose weight you need to provide your body fewer calories than it needs. As long as you do that, you'll lose weight. The greater the discrepancy, the faster you'll lose, but you'll still lose.

kerimanuel

yarwell wrote: »

Your fat reserves might be able to supply say 600 cals a day, so if you use 2000 and eat 800 there's a deficiency which may be met by something slowing down. That may be OK for a day or two but probably not a month.

The 1200 minimum is supposed to ensure adequate nutrition, not just energy (calories) ie 1200 cals of varied food is likely to meet your needs.

NoelFigart1

Naw, 115 still within an appropriate range running by just the BMI scale. Dancer-thin, yes. Personal preference? No. But within an appropriately healthy range.

(Not that I like BMI over body fat percentage, but it was the only measurement I could use based on the info given)

kerimanuel

So, is it possible to meet your nutrition requirements by eating the "right foods" and still being in a calorie deficit?

kerimanuel

trianglevision wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's physiologically impossible to gain or retain weight if you are eating at a calorie defecit...maybe at first but eventually it will give in and start metabolising itself for energy.

cwolfman13

Eating too little is just generally not healthy. It puts a lot of stress on the body and raises cortisol levels (which hinders weightloss). Eating too little for a long time also has a negative impact on your metabolism. You also lose a greater ratio of muscle and other lean mass to fat than you otherwise would.

It's not so much that you're going to hold onto everything you eat because you're "starving" yourself...it's just that you're jacking up your hormones and metabolism and actually making it more difficult to lose. Not to mention, it's just not necessary.

jacksonpt

kerimanuel wrote: »

So, is it possible to meet your nutrition requirements by eating the "right foods" and still being in a calorie deficit?

Certainly. The size of the deficit may play a role, but speaking generally it's absolutely possible.

kerimanuel

This is what I thought too, but I'm hearing others say it's unhealthy. I don't want to be unhealthy. I want to be thin, fit, toned and healthy.

jacksonpt

the problem is that thin, fit, toned and healthy mean different things to different people. IMO, you'll never get there on 500 cals per day. But what you think of as fit and toned and healthy may be very different than what I think of.

There's also a very clear mentality on MFP that there's only 1 right way to do things, and low cal diets definitely DO NOT fall into that mentality, so you'll get a lot of blind kickback for that reason alone.

brianpperkins

jacksonpt wrote: »

the problem is that thin, fit, toned and healthy mean different things to different people. IMO, you'll never get there on 500 cals per day. But what you think of as fit and toned and healthy may be very different than what I think of.

There's also a very clear mentality on MFP that there's only 1 right way to do things, and low cal diets definitely DO NOT fall into that mentality, so you'll get a lot of blind kickback for that reason alone.

500 calories falls into the VLCD range ... an area that should only be approached on medical orders with medical supervision.

lynndot1

Sinistrous wrote: »

To bluntly put it, google pictures of "Starving children" and then google why their bodies end up looking the way they do, then answer that for yourself.

Yes, you can eat too little. Do not do it.
Good luck!

If you're referring to people who are starving with distended stomachs, that is usually the result of kwashiorkor, a malnutrition specific to a lack of protein in the diet. You can be eating a sustainable amount of calories but go without protein long enough and kwashiorkor is the result. The distended stomach is from the body holding on to too much liquid (edema). But this is incredibly rare in any first world nation with the food supplies we have.

All that is to say there is no point in "starving yourself" when it comes to dieting, but saying "look at the starving children, that could be you" is an extreme comparison and I think a little over the top when compared to someone trying to lose weight.

One of the biggest hiccups you'll encounter eating consistently too little is eventually your body might send you on a binge. If I end up stretching too long between meals I will eat more when I do finally sit down and eat. People experiencing famine don't have this option. Although it's a negative thing in our eyes because we're trying to lose weight, it's your body trying to self-correct itself thinking food is scarce.

So take it easy on your body and get the fuel you need to last throughout the day. If you are honestly eating 800-1000 calories per day and are full of energy, not tired or irritable, and feel great, fine. But you should also make sure you're counting calories correctly. Get a cheap food scale and weigh some of your favorite foods just to make sure you're getting the right serving. A lot of "serving suggestions" by volume are off compared to weight, and things like meat and other non measurable items you are just eyeballing. It's hard to believe someone of your height (I am also 5'4", and would go nuts if I ate that little) can sustain their body on so little food and not notice any negative side effects. But this is why I think investing in a scale to REALLY make sure you're eating what you think you're eating.

jacksonpt

brianpperkins wrote: »

jacksonpt wrote: »

the problem is that thin, fit, toned and healthy mean different things to different people. IMO, you'll never get there on 500 cals per day. But what you think of as fit and toned and healthy may be very different than what I think of.

There's also a very clear mentality on MFP that there's only 1 right way to do things, and low cal diets definitely DO NOT fall into that mentality, so you'll get a lot of blind kickback for that reason alone.

500 calories falls into the VLCD range ... an area that should only be approached on medical orders with medical supervision.

What's your point? I know what 500 cals is.

cwolfman13

kerimanuel wrote: »

This is what I thought too, but I'm hearing others say it's unhealthy. I don't want to be unhealthy. I want to be thin, fit, toned and healthy.

Healthy, fit, and "toned" people eat to support their activity. You can't be fit and toned when you lose muscle mass running huge energy deficits.

I'm Healthy, fit, and "toned"...I ride about 80 miles per week on average and lift 3x weekly...plus I do some hiking, swimming, and I'm just generally active chasing around a 2 and 4 y.o. With all of that activity, I maintain my weight at right around 2800 - 3000 calories per day...sure, I could crash my diet and just eat 1800 (which is what MFP gives me BEFORE exercise)...but I would generally feel like *kitten* in pretty short order. Not to mention, hitting the gym would be a waste of time because there's no way I'd be able to hold on to my muscle mass with that kind of energy deficit. I'd also run into performance issues as well as exercise recovery issues and I would increase my risk of injury. So when I want to lose weight I just eat around 2400 calories per day...no need to "starve" myself. This provides me with a deficit of energy to lose weight (2800 - 2300 = 500 calorie deficit) but provides me with adequate energy and nutrition to support my fitness and other activities.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

trianglevision

You are pretty petite so if you feel ok eating that much I'm sure it's fine.

The 1200 calorie thing came from studying someone in a coma? How big was this person? Was it a male or female? How old were they? Everyone is different, and I honestly don't think 1200 calorie rule applies to everyone.

brianpperkins

jacksonpt wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

jacksonpt wrote: »

the problem is that thin, fit, toned and healthy mean different things to different people. IMO, you'll never get there on 500 cals per day. But what you think of as fit and toned and healthy may be very different than what I think of.

There's also a very clear mentality on MFP that there's only 1 right way to do things, and low cal diets definitely DO NOT fall into that mentality, so you'll get a lot of blind kickback for that reason alone.

500 calories falls into the VLCD range ... an area that should only be approached on medical orders with medical supervision.

What's your point? I know what 500 cals is.

First off, VLCD without doctor's supervision have a tendency of evolving into eating disorders. Second, promoting VLCD is a violation of the guidelines here. Third, your posts here claiming that entering such a range for up to a few months won't cause harm are incorrect and potentially harmful. Fourth, your admission that you understand that 500 calories is a VLCD makes it clear that your overlooking the contents of points 1- 3 is deliberate ... and inexcusable.

jkal1979

kace_kay wrote: »

http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

MFP estimates are a bit low. Figure out your BMR and TDEE and go from there.

My guess is that her estimate is low because she picked a weekly weight loss goal that was too aggressive for the amount that she has to lose.

Always_Smiling_D

Different things work for different people and whereas most will give the same result, there are some that are healthier ways than others. It is my experience that if I don't fuel correctly, I don't function well. I also use TDEE rather than what MFP says - I think MFP places every female at a 1200 calories and every male at a 1500 or 1800 calorie (I could be wrong)- depending on your weight/height your body is already expending a certain amount of calories per day on its own, even at rest. So the idea is to determine how many calories your body actually needs to function at its maximum, set a goal of 1 to1.5 lbs loss per week (this is healthiest) then determine the deficit that you actually need to reach that goal.

If you would like to know a bit more about TDEE (Total Daily Energy Expenditure) and what that looks like for you, visit the following site http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

Best of luck to you and def. keep asking questions - education is a huge part of your life change - and will help you find the best method to reach your goals, regardless of what all of us are saying

brianpperkins

trianglevision wrote: »

You are pretty petite so if you feel ok eating that much I'm sure it's fine.

The 1200 calorie thing came from studying someone in a coma? How big was this person? Was it a male or female? How old were they? Everyone is different, and I honestly don't think 1200 calorie rule applies to everyone.

Her BMR is above 1200. Her RMR is 1549 when calculated as sedentary. Her TDEE is about 1780 at 1-3 hours of light exercise (she does claim to work out five times a week).

Based on that, where is there anything indicating she should eat 800-1000 total calories while trying to lose 13 pounds?

jacksonpt

brianpperkins wrote: »

jacksonpt wrote: »

brianpperkins wrote: »

jacksonpt wrote: »

the problem is that thin, fit, toned and healthy mean different things to different people. IMO, you'll never get there on 500 cals per day. But what you think of as fit and toned and healthy may be very different than what I think of.

There's also a very clear mentality on MFP that there's only 1 right way to do things, and low cal diets definitely DO NOT fall into that mentality, so you'll get a lot of blind kickback for that reason alone.

500 calories falls into the VLCD range ... an area that should only be approached on medical orders with medical supervision.

What's your point? I know what 500 cals is.

First off, VLCD without doctor's supervision have a tendency of evolving into eating disorders. Second, promoting VLCD is a violation of the guidelines here. Third, your posts here claiming that entering such a range for up to a few months won't cause harm are incorrect and potentially harmful. Fourth, your admission that you understand that 500 calories is a VLCD makes it clear that your overlooking the contents of points 1- 3 is deliberate ... and inexcusable.

All fair points, but to counterpoint...

Yes, 500 cal diets can lead to eating disorders. But FAR more often, people can't sustain 500 cal diets, and they only last a few days to a couple of weeks. And that's assuming accurate logging/estimating, which is a HUUUUGE assumption.

I'm not promoting anything. I simply answered a question. Do I think it's a good approach to take? No, definitely not. But OP did not as if it was recommended, only if it was possible.

Potentially dangerous? Sure. But everything has some potential danger. I don't agree that an otherwise healthy person will see significant and meaningful long term health problems resulting from short term VLCD .