I'm confused. Can you really eat too little?
Options
Replies
-
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.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!
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.
0 -
brianpperkins 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.0 -
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.0 -
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.-2 -
brianpperkins 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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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
0 -
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?0 -
All fair points, but to counterpoint...brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins 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.
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 .
0 -
The OP never asked a thing about going into the VLCD range ... you volunteered that all by yourself. You've backtracked from it being no problem for a few weeks to few months to then agreeing to a post saying it should be medically supervised to this last drivel filled diatribe. All I can hope is that the OP is wise enough to see the foolishness in a VLCD in spite of your posts.-1
-
You lost me.0
-
-
Wow! Ok. First of all I never said 500 calories so I don't know why someone went there.
Next, I totally get what you all are saying about nutrition and making sure my body is getting what it needs. I had not been thinking of it from that perspective so thank you! I do want to be healthy.
That being said, what I'm hearing is that I really need to be eating more. I just feel like if I eat more I will not lose weight. I know some of you think I don't need to and I know I'm not "fat" but I WANT to have a body that looks good without clothes on or in a swimsuit. Maybe I can accomplish that without getting to 115, I don't know, but I do know that something has to change. I feel like I have excess fat around my stomach, hips, arms. I guess more flabby than I would like. No, I don't want to be model thin, but I do want to look good. I don't think that's an unreasonable goal.0 -
If you are going to eat 800 cals, make sure you have adequate protein intake and consider suplementing your vitamins for the nutritional deficiency.-1
-
Gotcha. OP said she eats between 800-1000 cals, PLUS she workouts. That's a net of less than 800-1000. I mentioned 500 for the sake of conversation, rather than something more convoluted like "900 calories minus your wokrout calories which could be anywhere from 100-500 calories which would give you a net intake of ~ 300-900 depending on the day."
It was certainly never my intent to suggest OP should be eating specifically 500 cals per day.0 -
kerimanuel wrote: »Wow! Ok. First of all I never said 500 calories so I don't know why someone went there.
Next, I totally get what you all are saying about nutrition and making sure my body is getting what it needs. I had not been thinking of it from that perspective so thank you! I do want to be healthy.
That being said, what I'm hearing is that I really need to be eating more. I just feel like if I eat more I will not lose weight. I know some of you think I don't need to and I know I'm not "fat" but I WANT to have a body that looks good without clothes on or in a swimsuit. Maybe I can accomplish that without getting to 115, I don't know, but I do know that something has to change. I feel like I have excess fat around my stomach, hips, arms. I guess more flabby than I would like. No, I don't want to be model thin, but I do want to look good. I don't think that's an unreasonable goal.
Perhaps post a pic of what a good bikini body looks like to you? Then we could make some recommendations based on approximate body composition to reach that type of body.0 -
kerimanuel wrote: »Wow! Ok. First of all I never said 500 calories so I don't know why someone went there.
Next, I totally get what you all are saying about nutrition and making sure my body is getting what it needs. I had not been thinking of it from that perspective so thank you! I do want to be healthy.
That being said, what I'm hearing is that I really need to be eating more. I just feel like if I eat more I will not lose weight. I know some of you think I don't need to and I know I'm not "fat" but I WANT to have a body that looks good without clothes on or in a swimsuit. Maybe I can accomplish that without getting to 115, I don't know, but I do know that something has to change. I feel like I have excess fat around my stomach, hips, arms. I guess more flabby than I would like. No, I don't want to be model thin, but I do want to look good. I don't think that's an unreasonable goal.
You probably see yourself very differently than anyone else. At your height and weight, my guess is that you already look perfectly lovely in a bathing suit (bikini even).
I would push you to do a body recomp instead - do a weight lifting programme such as Stronglifts or Starting Strength. Eat at TDEE and slowly build muscle while losing body fat. THAT will do more for your body than under-eating as much as you are proposing. At the least, I would eat TDEE-15% while also weight lifting. That way you'll maintain more of your muscle while losing body fat. Otherwise you are just going to lose both muscle (a lot) and fat and never really look trim and 'toned'.0 -
No.
Eating too little will not cause you to gain weight by "holding on" to anything.
The problems with eating too little are malnurishment, vitamin deficiencies, blood sugar issues, electrolyte imbalances, starvation, fatigue, sleep disorders, sexual dysfunction, depression, hair loss, anemia, low blood pressure, compromised immune system function, low body temperature, organ shrinkage, weakened bone structure, reduced mental capacity ... the list is really quite endless. The more you dig in and research, the more you find.
Nutrition is important.
Not eating leads to no nutrition.
Dont. Do. That.0 -
Thanks y'all. Now I'm thinking maybe I should be focusing more on building muscle and losing fat and not focus so much on losing weight. For me, I think it's more about how I look and feel and I was connecting that too being a specific weight. Now I'm thinking maybe I get get to there a different way. Am I on the right track?
I need to do some research I guess. Thanks to those who posted links on this. I'll check them out.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions