Restricting Calories Too Low
AngelZealot
Posts: 49 Member
I know many of us have done it before... restricting your calorie intake too low to lose weight. For me, restricting low worked in the past, and a friend of mine also sees great results by a super low calorie goal. What are the side effects of restricting your calories below 1000 per day (for a woman)? And just to let you know, I no longer restrict my calories below 1200.
0
Replies
-
There is probably too many issues to mention with long term extreme calorie restriction. Long term restrictions of extremely low calories can lead to Vitamin and mineral deficiencies leading to bad eyes, bad skin, bad hair, bad teeth, long term damage to organs, bone loss, hair loss, menstruation problems, menstruation loss, muscle loss, extreme fatigue, and too many other ailments to name. Not to mention a tendency to binge eat which is extremely unhealthy and terrible for your metabolism. Less than 1000 calories a day wouldn't be enough for a 6 year old let alone a fully grown woman. And if none of that bothers you, your skin can look gross, your hair might not grow right, and your nails can start breaking off which is not very attractive once you get to your goal weight.0
-
If you get adequate nutrition from a properly formulated diet, are obese (hence can supply plenty of calories from body fat) and have no medical conditions then a short period like 6 - 8 weeks is a medically recognised approach to weight loss.0
-
And many people who do this end up gaining the weight back because they never learned how to eat properly. They restrict and then go back to eating normally, thus gaining, because it was all about losing weight quickly for an event or something like that, instead of thinking about it as something to do for life. I did it in the past and it didn't work long-term. For me, that says everything. I want to do what will help me maintain a healthy weight for life.0
-
Most people who do anything end up gaining the weight back, so that's not a measure of anything really. The long run weight loss of bariatric surgery is only 50% of the excess weight.
I agree that maintenance is more difficult than dieting and effort needs to be put into transitioning and establishing a maintenance plan.0 -
No one has ever restricted their calories too much to lose weight (unless you count the people who died from starvation).0
-
mymodernbabylon wrote: »And many people who do this end up gaining the weight back because they never learned how to eat properly. They restrict and then go back to eating normally, thus gaining, because it was all about losing weight quickly for an event or something like that, instead of thinking about it as something to do for life. I did it in the past and it didn't work long-term. For me, that says everything. I want to do what will help me maintain a healthy weight for life.
+1
The primary side effect is probably weight regain.
As many people in maintenance finds - losing is the easy part comparatively speaking. Maintaining the loss for X period of time lies the true challenge.
If a eating plan is too extreme and cannot be maintained for the long haul then the probability of keeping the weight off is nearly impossible.
It's all about the mindset ... does one really want to lose weight for the summer or actually get healthy for life. Different mentalities will drive different approaches.0 -
The main side effect for me if I under eat is hunger, leading to over-eating / binges. This is probably one of the main reasons diets fail long term.
If a woman manages to stick to the low calorie intake long and body weight drops too low, then the effects of starvation will eventually start to show - periods can stop, hair falling out, etc.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »No one has ever restricted their calories too much to lose weight (unless you count the people who died from starvation).
Wait, so eating say 600 calories a day (for example) is okay just as long as your not emaciated? I don't buy that. Short term you may lose weight but it will just creep back on again. Long term I don't think a fully grown adult can get proper nutrition from a diet too small.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »No one has ever restricted their calories too much to lose weight (unless you count the people who died from starvation).
Wait, so eating say 600 calories a day (for example) is okay just as long as your not emaciated? I don't buy that. Short term you may lose weight but it will just creep back on again. Long term I don't think a fully grown adult can get proper nutrition from a diet too small.
That person didn't say that it was okay to restrict calories to 600 or that one would get proper nutrition on a 600 calorie diet. He simply said that nobody could restrict too much to lose weight.
0 -
Besides not getting the vitamins and minerals your body needs it is also important for brain functioning to get proper nutrition. Under 100g of carbs per day takes a toll on brain function. This will effect how you perform at work, in the gym and in your daily life. Not to mention being "skinny fat" which only looks appealing in clothes not a swimsuit or summer wear. There really are too many long term issues with under eating to name but those two are most important to me.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »No one has ever restricted their calories too much to lose weight (unless you count the people who died from starvation).
Wait, so eating say 600 calories a day (for example) is okay just as long as your not emaciated? I don't buy that. Short term you may lose weight but it will just creep back on again. Long term I don't think a fully grown adult can get proper nutrition from a diet too small.
I don't think he meant that
Clearly adequate nutrition can't be achieved at a VLCD level however there is no such thing as eating so few calories that you don't lose/put on weight which is a commonly held belief due to stupid media coverage of adaptive thermogenesis and dieters' erroneous beliefs0 -
Okay so I suppose youre right, we don't know how many calories exactly she is thinking of cutting down to or for how long of a stretch of time in order to lose weight. But I consider "cutting down too much" when you run the risk of physical OR psychological harm to your body from doing so. Of course youre going to lose weight by restricting, if you ate nothing at all you'd lose weight like a fiend! But restricting too low is not sustainable and is not healthy. Thats what I'm saying.janejellyroll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one has ever restricted their calories too much to lose weight (unless you count the people who died from starvation).
Wait, so eating say 600 calories a day (for example) is okay just as long as your not emaciated? I don't buy that. Short term you may lose weight but it will just creep back on again. Long term I don't think a fully grown adult can get proper nutrition from a diet too small.
That person didn't say that it was okay to restrict calories to 600 or that one would get proper nutrition on a 600 calorie diet. He simply said that nobody could restrict too much to lose weight.
0 -
Obsession with body weight that leads to willful behavior that risks serious damage, both immediate and long term, is an interesting first world experience.0
-
Okay so I suppose youre right, we don't know how many calories exactly she is thinking of cutting down to or for how long of a stretch of time in order to lose weight. But I consider "cutting down too much" when you run the risk of physical OR psychological harm to your body from doing so. Of course youre going to lose weight by restricting, if you ate nothing at all you'd lose weight like a fiend! But restricting too low is not sustainable and is not healthy. Thats what I'm saying.janejellyroll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one has ever restricted their calories too much to lose weight (unless you count the people who died from starvation).
Wait, so eating say 600 calories a day (for example) is okay just as long as your not emaciated? I don't buy that. Short term you may lose weight but it will just creep back on again. Long term I don't think a fully grown adult can get proper nutrition from a diet too small.
That person didn't say that it was okay to restrict calories to 600 or that one would get proper nutrition on a 600 calorie diet. He simply said that nobody could restrict too much to lose weight.
Who is saying anything contrary to that? I'm not. And neither (in my opinion) was the person you were responding to.
There are many, many reasons not to restrict yourself to 600 calories a day. The idea that eating only 600 calories will somehow keep you from losing weight just isn't one of them.0 -
Ugh, okay forget a threw a number out there. The number never existed it was just an example.
The other guy was responding to the OP's original statement of " I know many of us have done it before... restricting your calorie intake too low to lose weight."
Which yes its true you will lose weight as the respond er said we all know if you eat a deficit of any size you will lose weight. But thats not what the OP is talking about, they're talking about the dangers of crash diets. So there is a number that is "too low" for health concerns. I just think the context got jumbled somewhere....0 -
Side effects of extreme restriction:
Malnourishment
Fatigue
Mental confusion
Low Blood sugar (fainting/light headed/headaches just to name a few ills)
Hair loss/thinning
Dry skin
Nail breakage
Stress/damage to vital organs
Muscle wasting
Bone loss
Loss of/disrupted menstruation
Some of these come on faster than others. Others develop over time. But I will say, I ate under 1500 (but above 1100) for just one single month at the beginning of my weight loss (before I found the wonderful peeps here at MFP), and experienced most of these things. JUST in ONE month of aggressive restriction, and I felt like I was hit by a truck. Not worth it to me.
Yes, you'll lose weight fast, but at what cost (mental and physical)?
0 -
Ugh, okay forget a threw a number out there. The number never existed it was just an example.
The other guy was responding to the OP's original statement of " I know many of us have done it before... restricting your calorie intake too low to lose weight."
Which yes its true you will lose weight as the respond er said we all know if you eat a deficit of any size you will lose weight. But thats not what the OP is talking about, they're talking about the dangers of crash diets. So there is a number that is "too low" for health concerns. I just think the context got jumbled somewhere....
The point is that you can restrict your calories low enough to cause other problems, but you can't restrict your calories too low to lose weight.0 -
Just curious - when you sayAngelZealot wrote: »I know many of us have done it before... restricting your calorie intake too low to lose weight. For me, restricting low worked in the past, and a friend of mine also sees great results by a super low calorie goal. What are the side effects of restricting your calories below 1000 per day (for a woman)? And just to let you know, I no longer restrict my calories below 1200.
Do you mean 'Too low, in order to lose weight' or 'Too low - and as a result you do not lose weight' ?0 -
lol, a little pedantic
everyone is arguing the same point, and I think we are all agreed. On a VLCD you WILL lose weight, however it would not be good for your body, @williams969 summed it up perfectly.williams969 wrote: »Side effects of extreme restriction:
Malnourishment
Fatigue
Mental confusion
Low Blood sugar (fainting/light headed/headaches just to name a few ills)
Hair loss/thinning
Dry skin
Nail breakage
Stress/damage to vital organs
Muscle wasting
Bone loss
Loss of/disrupted menstruation
Yes, you'll lose weight fast, but at what cost (mental and physical)?
What I would also be interested in learning about is the long term effects on your metabolism.. once you have been on a VLCD for a period of time, your body will try to adjust and metabolic rate will decrease. When you try to then eat normally I would imagine that you would put on weight fairly quickly.. those calories would have to be increased very slowly....
0 -
I would also be interested to see what everyone thinks about how vitamin supplements and nourishment drinks compare with getting nutrients from food?0
-
other than actual hunger I think you can get "nutrients" from those sources and live...but is that life?I would also be interested to see what everyone thinks about how vitamin supplements and nourishment drinks compare with getting nutrients from food?
liquids do make you feel "full" but not satisfied...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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