Harm in huge deficit for mordibly obese?

judiness101

I'm happy you changed you mind about the 1200 calories a day goal, it's way too low.

You have to find the sweet spot between losing fast enough to get you out of the morbidly obese category fast enough and being able to do your daily activity and sustain the lifestyle change.

Springfield1970

ditsyblond17 wrote: »

Thank you all so much. It is starting to make a bit more sense. I was using Harry Benedict formula and that says my BMR is a TON higher than what is given for lean body mass. No wonder I got to this weight. Technically it says I need to eat 1,600 to maintain, but I easily eat 1,000+ a day more before I was conscious of it. Even if I've learned nothing else so far, I've learned it's incredible the amount of food our eyes thinks our stomachs need.

I don't know what went wrong there but that's no way right.

I weigh 127lb and maintain at 1800 plus without exercise, add exercise in and I get to eat back 400-600 per hour depending on what I'm doing. You'd burn even more than that because of your weight.

From Scooby's calculator I put in that you're 320 5'7" female age 25 and desk job with no exercise.

Your BMR (basal metabolic rate-lying around in a coma rate) is 2054 to maintain, your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure, just bumbling along doing day to day things) is 2465.

I really trust this calculator, and so do others.

Try losing 2lbs a week (7000 cals) by being in a deficit of 1000 per day.

Your Magic number is......1465.

Very do-able!

Then to help all us readers, please weigh yourself every day and average out every 7 to test your weight loss is working. The fist couple of weeks you'll lose lots more because of water loss, then it should go to cruise for a while.

Remember to recalculate your Tdee every 10lb lost, and if you add exercise.

Best of luck!

lemurcat12

ditsyblond17 wrote: »

So based on sedentary TDEE (for those that know about that it's BMRx 1.2) is that the number I need to decrease 1,500 by if I want to lose 3 pounds a week?

Yes, but remember that under the MFP plan you eat back exercise calories (really important, I think, if you are trying such an extreme deficit and at or close to the 1200 number), and watch your losses, since IME you may not be sedentary. (I assumed I was when I started, because I have an office job, but I live in a city and walk a lot and when you are heavier that tends to make even more of a difference.)

Also, don't feel like there's any need to stick to that deficit all the time if you aren't feeling good or satisfied. I was okay on 1250 when I started, but I would have gotten bored of it well before I was anywhere near my goal weight if I hadn't started exercising and had the extra calories to use. You are fortunate enough to probably be able to lose 2 lbs/week on 1700 or so, so don't sabotage yourself by pushing the lower number if it's not working.

lemurcat12

christinev297 wrote: »

You're lucky azulviolet. I totally struggle
I was wondering if it would be even harder for OP because she weighs so much more??

It might be, but it might be easier. I would find 1200 impossible now that I'm close to goal weight (like you), but found it easy when I first started and was in the 200s (I'm only 5'3). Bodies are weird.

lemurcat12

EvgeniZyntx wrote: »

Potential harm of long term large deficits includes:

Gallstones
Hormonal imbalance
Adrenal/thyroid damage
Improper nutritional issues
Bingeing
Depression
Disordered thinking
Further loose skin issues

However, a short term period of 6-8 weeks of eating at a larger deficit isn't a big risk and may be recommended for someone who is morbidly obese. It may cause adherence problems and bingeing, so discuss with your doctor.

Edit: Also, it will like also result in adaptive thermogenesis. A reduced weight loss at a specific calorie level.

The risks listed above may be outweighed by current illness or other risks of being morbidly obese. Again, this is a discussion to have with a physician, face to face.

This is great advice. I'd say pay attention to it.

yarwell

SMR (MJ/day)=1.89+0.105FFM (kg) from a population similar to the OP http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v24/n6/full/0801230a.html unfortunately doesn't report individual data despite only 8 subjects. About 1880 for the OP.

Using Nelson I get 1827, Rosa 1687. Estimated %BF from BMI etc. All well short of the standard 2200 prediction which is where I was coming from.

EvgeniZyntx

yarwell wrote: »

SMR (MJ/day)=1.89+0.105FFM (kg) from a population similar to the OP http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v24/n6/full/0801230a.html unfortunately doesn't report individual data despite only 8 subjects. About 1880 for the OP.

Using Nelson I get 1827, Rosa 1687. Estimated %BF from BMI etc. All well short of the standard 2200 prediction which is where I was coming from.

Did the OP give her bf%?
(The BMI to bf estimate curves are often wrong: see this: http://halls.md/body-fat-percentage-formula/
it's an awful site but at least that page makes some sense...)

Solving your output seems to suggest you estimated with about a 60% bf%. Even a 5% difference will give closer to her number.

Anyway, it's moot. These formulas are estimates and are easily trumped by your own experience, using your own data. Choose one, eat at that for a month or two, adjust.

Liftng4Lis

With so much to lose, 3 pounds a week would be okay. As you lose weight though and have less to lose, that's not going to work.

Zedeff

Lots of people telling you that aggressive goals and deficits are unsustainable. These people are just projecting their own issues onto you. If YOU can maintain an aggressive deficit, then it doesn't matter that they couldn't.

neanderthin

Zedeff wrote: »

Lots of people telling you that aggressive goals and deficits are unsustainable. These people are just projecting their own issues onto you. If YOU can maintain an aggressive deficit, then it doesn't matter that they couldn't.

Bonneville salt flats came to mind. The swamp at the end is tricky though.

Kida_Adeylne

Zedeff wrote: »

Lots of people telling you that aggressive goals and deficits are unsustainable. These people are just projecting their own issues onto you. If YOU can maintain an aggressive deficit, then it doesn't matter that they couldn't.

That would be true, but the OP made a previous thread about binging difficulties on low intake.

Slow and steady wins the race.

LavenderLeaves

Zedeff wrote: »

Lots of people telling you that aggressive goals and deficits are unsustainable. These people are just projecting their own issues onto you. If YOU can maintain an aggressive deficit, then it doesn't matter that they couldn't.

Op also said she has issues with binging. Drastic calorie intakes for someone who has issues with binging can set them up for failure. They aren't projecting anything - they are talking from experience and want OP to be able to have success for the rest of her life, not just a few months right now.

jgnatca

During my supervised weight loss I was asked not to go below 1200 and to get a minimum protein and fluid intake daily. I still suffered brittle nails from lack of calcium. My compatriots who were not as successful at reaching that goal suffered from hair loss, dry skin, kidney stones, and gall bladder problems.

I am eating 1650 or more a day and still losing. I think even with extreme weight loss the goal is to eat as much as you can get away with and still lose weight. Exercise helps create that buffer, too.

MaryCS62

I started close to 300 lb, & set for loss of 2 lb/week. Over the first 10 weeks, it actuallly averaged 3.5 lb/week, even though I was eating at the level MFP gave me. When I got down those 35 lbs, to continue @ 2 lb/week loss, I would have had to go to 1240, which was too low for me, so I changed it to 1.5 lb loss / week. It gives me a little more wiggle room. Some days I'm at my goal, sometimes under, but I haven't had too much trouble making the gradual adjustments.
When you have a lot to lose, it's better to follow the recommendations. If you start @ 1200, you'll have nowhere to go down to. It's easier to start lower than you have been, but not as low as you'll eventually have to go, because you will be able to make a gradual downward adjustment, not as much of a shock to the system.
A little rambling, but I hope it makes sense.