Why is calorie restriction considered to be so bad on MFP?
JAT74
Posts: 1,081 Member
I am currently doing the 5:2 diet which is based on calorie restriction 2 days per week where you eat 25% of your normal daily calories and eat the total of your TDEE on the other days.
Some people restrict further while doing this and have 3 fast days, while there are others who even do alternate day fasting.
In addition to this, some people swear by other forms of intermittent fasting such as 24 hour fasts or 18:6/16:8 etc.
The 5:2 diet came about due to the results of a BBC Horizon documentary Eat Fast Live Longer which proved that you can improve your health a lot just by restricting calories at least some days every week and there are lots of people who have proven health benefits by doing this long-term and restricting their calorie intake for life.
I watched another BBC documentary on BBC 2 yesterday about this subject where the presenter was looking at different diets to see which had the best health benefits and after trying a calorie restriction diet which consisted of eating only breakfast and lunch and cutting out most food groups except fruit, vegetables and pulses, then trying to eat Paleo (including raw food only in one case) and finally trying a fruitarian diet the conclusion was that we can live much longer if we eat a natural food diet in small quantities. The example in this case was a man of 113 who only ate fish, meat occasionally and other than that only fruit and vegetables in small quantities.
My question is that most of these people on all the diets in the programme probably ate a diet which restricted their daily calories by quite a large percentage and in some cases given as examples their blood test results showed that they were healthy despite doing so.
It's not the first time I've heard about calorie restriction for life in order to live longer and be generally healthier so why is it such a 'taboo' subject? I'm not talking about VLCDs or eating disorders which mean people eat 75% less but diets which restrict calorie by at least 30 or 40% of the normal intake and don't cut out the main food groups in order to maximise the nutritional content and to become healthier in the long-run.
In my personal case, I am restricting calories a little now and am losing weight slowly but my goal is to get my body fat % down as it is still really high at the moment and I need to find a way to speed this up. I have a BMI of 24 and am now technically a healthy weight but I would like to get my body fat down by 10-15% and my current level of calorie restriction which is only about 25% is not really helping to do this.
The main thing preventing me from going lower with my calories is the fact that from what I've read on here it's not a good thing to do and how your body goes into starvation mode etc. etc. but if so many doctors, scientists and real living people who swear by this method in order to live long healthy lives do it and are proof it's good for you rather than bad why do people tell you not to do it, it just doesn't make any sense?
Just to add to that, when I have questioned people who have actually reached their goal weight, body fat percentage and size which few people have on here (though many have shed a huge amount of weight) and I ask them how they did so, the answer I get back time and time again is that they have restricted calories to less then recommended levels ie in a lot of cases women have gone as low as 1000-1200 calories per day while exercising in order to get the weight off.
I personally will carry on as I am and try increasing my activity level for the time being while averaging 1350 calories per day eaten, though if I am prepared for the fact that it may require me to go a little lower if I want to reach my goal.
Some people restrict further while doing this and have 3 fast days, while there are others who even do alternate day fasting.
In addition to this, some people swear by other forms of intermittent fasting such as 24 hour fasts or 18:6/16:8 etc.
The 5:2 diet came about due to the results of a BBC Horizon documentary Eat Fast Live Longer which proved that you can improve your health a lot just by restricting calories at least some days every week and there are lots of people who have proven health benefits by doing this long-term and restricting their calorie intake for life.
I watched another BBC documentary on BBC 2 yesterday about this subject where the presenter was looking at different diets to see which had the best health benefits and after trying a calorie restriction diet which consisted of eating only breakfast and lunch and cutting out most food groups except fruit, vegetables and pulses, then trying to eat Paleo (including raw food only in one case) and finally trying a fruitarian diet the conclusion was that we can live much longer if we eat a natural food diet in small quantities. The example in this case was a man of 113 who only ate fish, meat occasionally and other than that only fruit and vegetables in small quantities.
My question is that most of these people on all the diets in the programme probably ate a diet which restricted their daily calories by quite a large percentage and in some cases given as examples their blood test results showed that they were healthy despite doing so.
It's not the first time I've heard about calorie restriction for life in order to live longer and be generally healthier so why is it such a 'taboo' subject? I'm not talking about VLCDs or eating disorders which mean people eat 75% less but diets which restrict calorie by at least 30 or 40% of the normal intake and don't cut out the main food groups in order to maximise the nutritional content and to become healthier in the long-run.
In my personal case, I am restricting calories a little now and am losing weight slowly but my goal is to get my body fat % down as it is still really high at the moment and I need to find a way to speed this up. I have a BMI of 24 and am now technically a healthy weight but I would like to get my body fat down by 10-15% and my current level of calorie restriction which is only about 25% is not really helping to do this.
The main thing preventing me from going lower with my calories is the fact that from what I've read on here it's not a good thing to do and how your body goes into starvation mode etc. etc. but if so many doctors, scientists and real living people who swear by this method in order to live long healthy lives do it and are proof it's good for you rather than bad why do people tell you not to do it, it just doesn't make any sense?
Just to add to that, when I have questioned people who have actually reached their goal weight, body fat percentage and size which few people have on here (though many have shed a huge amount of weight) and I ask them how they did so, the answer I get back time and time again is that they have restricted calories to less then recommended levels ie in a lot of cases women have gone as low as 1000-1200 calories per day while exercising in order to get the weight off.
I personally will carry on as I am and try increasing my activity level for the time being while averaging 1350 calories per day eaten, though if I am prepared for the fact that it may require me to go a little lower if I want to reach my goal.
0
Replies
-
Sorry but tl;dr. Winner is the person eating the most food while losing weight. Pointless to make yourself eat way less when you can lose on way more and enjoy life way more.0
-
I'm not talking about weight loss but health and longevity. Of course we'd all love to be able to eat loads and weigh what we want and look amazing while doing so but that's not what I mean at all.
For health and longevity, a lot of recent TV programs, books, diets and studies done have come to conclusion that to be at our healthiest and to live longer than the average person we need to restrict calories forever.
I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is frowned upon so much on this website and why people say you shouldn't restrict more than a certain amount etc.0 -
I've read through this twice now and still don't completely understand what you are asking. I tend to agree with ana3067 though. I would rather eat more while losing for a few reasons: to keep from feeling miserable, to maintain strength, to train myself for long term weight management.0
-
It's like going to Weight Watchers and asking why they aren't counting calories.I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is frowned upon so much on this website and why people say you shouldn't restrict more than a certain amount etc.
Highly restricted days are just not part of the MFP method of weight management.
0 -
The general consensus here is the average women shouldn't go below 1200 calories because this is the minimum to sustain our bodily functions. Until a peer reviewed scientific paper comes out proving otherwise, this stance will remain.
I lost a lot of weight fairly quickly doing alternate day fasting. I'm nearly down to my goal weight eating at a daily deficit now.0 -
OP - you made your post far too long for people's 5 second attention span!1
-
Love when they post about their hair loss and feeling shaky and cold etc-2 -
-
OP wants to discuss severe calorie restriction diets which lead to restriction of the aging process, and health benefits... personally, I can't do it because I love food and I'm training - but there is plenty of evidence that it works:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140401/ncomms4557/full/ncomms4557.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/7898775/The-Calorie-Restriction-dieters.html0 -
I'm not talking about weight loss but health and longevity. Of course we'd all love to be able to eat loads and weigh what we want and look amazing while doing so but that's not what I mean at all.
For health and longevity, a lot of recent TV programs, books, diets and studies done have come to conclusion that to be at our healthiest and to live longer than the average person we need to restrict calories forever.
I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is frowned upon so much on this website and why people say you shouldn't restrict more than a certain amount etc.
I don't want to live longer than the average person. The two grandparents I had who lived into their 90s spent their last 10 years living as Alzheimer's patients. I'd rather eat more, enjoy myself, and kick it in my 70s/early 80s.
0 -
Because as soon as someone hears the word "fasting" they think of starvation diets. And very very few people on here have read information about of 5:2 and other forms of IF and even fewer than that have tried it for the above reason.0
-
I'm not talking about weight loss but health and longevity. Of course we'd all love to be able to eat loads and weigh what we want and look amazing while doing so but that's not what I mean at all.
For health and longevity, a lot of recent TV programs, books, diets and studies done have come to conclusion that to be at our healthiest and to live longer than the average person we need to restrict calories forever.
I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is frowned upon so much on this website and why people say you shouldn't restrict more than a certain amount etc.
I really don't understand what you're saying.
In your original post, you say you're not talking about VLCD, so I'm wondering what you are talking about?
Most people will need to restrict calories forever - to maintain their weight. Restricting calories isn't frowned upon here. Going very low with your calories is - because your body needs a certain number of calories to function (your brain, heart, lungs, etc all use energy every day).
Another point is: very high deficits aren't (generally) sustainable for long. Over an extended period of time, one can experience metabolic adaptation,
0 -
Sorry it was so long! I'm thinking about a lot of TV shows and diet books like 5:2 but also things I've seen mentioned by various reputable sources which talk about calorie restrictions for health benefits. A lot of the time the amount of restriction is quite significant (more than MFP recommends) so I wanted to know why when this is considered safe/healthy people are told they shouldn't do it.
Jwlester3, that's exactly what I'm talking about ie. reversal of unhealthy numbers in blood test rests, helping to slow down the aging process etc. Not eating disorders or unhealthy methods like cutting out essential food groups.0 -
It is unhealthy and very pointless. Once you get back to your regular routine you will just gain all the weight back. So might as well eat and exercise to live a proper and healthier life.0
-
I followed 5:2 for a while last year. Health wise I felt great but can't honestly say I lost much weight.0
-
TheVirgoddess yes but there's a difference between VLCDs which I understand sometimes restrict people to as little as 500 cals a day and eating less than MFP recommends ie. around 30-40% less than your TDEE which in my personal case would mean eating about 900-1000 calories on non-exercise days and about 1300-1400 on days when my TDEE is 2000 ish.0
-
hhnkhl, that's the whole point, you're not supposed to 'go back' to your old way of eating. People who calorie restrict like this do it forever. They consider themselves to be healthier by doing that and according to them their numbers prove this to be true.
Aimeerace, 5:2 does work for health and weight loss but you have to be careful on your non-fast days too. Some people overeat on those days and have 0 weight loss, though in my experience so far I am losing less weight than when I wasn't doing 5:2.0 -
It is unhealthy and very pointless. Once you get back to your regular routine you will just gain all the weight back. So might as well eat and exercise to live a proper and healthier life.
Absolutely not true!! I started Alternate Day Fasting the first week of last October. I dropped 24lbs in 4mths. I'm still eating in a slight deficit, but everyday instead of severely restricting every second day. As long as i stay under my maintenance calories i will continue to lose weight, and when i'm at maintenance i will maintain my weight. Restricting calories or fasting doesn't mean you are automatically going to pack on the pounds. Over eating will ensure that!!
0 -
TheVirgoddess yes but there's a difference between VLCDs which I understand sometimes restrict people to as little as 500 cals a day and eating less than MFP recommends ie. around 30-40% less than your TDEE which in my personal case would mean eating about 900-1000 calories on non-exercise days and about 1300-1400 on days when my TDEE is 2000 ish.
I see the question now.
Maybe it would be best for you to track on a weekly basis, rather than daily. If you eat 900 calories three days a week, and 1400 calories the other four, you're averaging around 1200 calories a day (which is the recommended minimum). The average (or, your overall diet) is what matters. Make sense?0 -
In my personal case, I am restricting calories a little now and am losing weight slowly but my goal is to get my body fat % down as it is still really high at the moment and I need to find a way to speed this up. I have a BMI of 24 and am now technically a healthy weight but I would like to get my body fat down by 10-15% and my current level of calorie restriction which is only about 25% is not really helping to do this.
Why do you think it's not helping you do that? The problem with trying to lose body fat when you are close to goal (I have no idea what your current percentage is or how you calculated it, so am going by the fact that you are a healthy weight) is that it really can't be done that fast, because too large a deficit will lead to more loss of muscle.The main thing preventing me from going lower with my calories is the fact that from what I've read on here it's not a good thing to do and how your body goes into starvation mode etc. etc. but if so many doctors, scientists and real living people who swear by this method in order to live long healthy lives do it and are proof it's good for you rather than bad why do people tell you not to do it, it just doesn't make any sense?
Who at MFP claims "starvation mode"? The issue with lowering calories too far for a long period of time is that your metabolism decreases--metabolic adaptation. That must happen with the people who follow a low calorie diet for a long period of time for longevity, or they'd keep losing weight. Instead they get to a certain point where their weight plus metabolism maintains on whatever they are eating.
At that point they aren't eating below TDEE, but what their TDEE is.0 -
I don't know of anyone who is saying fasting is a bad thing, as long as you are averaging at least 1200 calories per day. If you fast two days a week, that would mean eating 1680 calories on the other days.0
-
I do the 16/8 method. It works really well for me for two reasons:
1. I am not hungry in the mornings as a rule. Never hungry till around 11 or noon, and I have a long commute as a rule, so I don't really have time for a breakfast I'm not hungry for.
2. MY downfall for gaining weight was always nighttime snacks. Eating this way eliminates them, and since I've done that I have started to drop weight.
I will say that eating on the 16/8 method doesn't require any dramatic cuts in how much I eat I still use MFP and eat the recommended number of calories, I just eat them in an 8 hour window. Eating in my window has largely eliminated hunger pains, but when I started I did have to be VERY careful that I ate all of my calories. If I undereat, I will have no energy the next day, which I hate. This is mostly not a problem anymore since I have gotten used to it. I'll be starting a new job soon though and that'll be the big challenge...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yes of course the average is what leads to weight loss. I was giving the example of IF or 5:2 fasting but there are some who calorie restrict every single day to such an extent but I suppose it depends on your activity level how low you'd have to go. If you are very active you could restrict by 30-40% and still eat what MFP considers to be ok (though the MFP net calories would still be lower than they recommend) but for others who are less active it would mean going down to below 1000 calories.
What springs to mind though is that people can be healthy while restricting more than MFP considers to be healthy but I suppose they are just covering their back.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Of course people have reached their goal by doing different things, but I personally have spoken to a lot of people who do not post on the public forums and when I've asked them about how they got to their goal weight or body fat it was often by eating less than MFP recommends.
I agree that IF works but having watched the 5:2 documentary, it started off talking about calorie restriction and the 5:2 method was developed because the subject concluded that it would be too difficult to either fast for longer or restrict calories by a lot every day of the week.0 -
Things are frowned upon at this site because every person has an opinion about what works for them (whether it actually happened or not, sustainable longterm, etc,.). Some people fail to articulate their experiences and opinions in a respectful manner. The joys of the internet.
I have fasted for short periods before and had results. The days I didn't fast, I ate a lot and worked my --- off. I don't have a particular reason for not fasting anymore. At the end of the day, you can only do your research and try what will work for you.0 -
Ok fair enough, so in that case how can the 'calorie restriction' dieters who eat that way forever claim to be so healthy if they restrict so much? Why do they not suffer from these problems? Maybe it's down to what they are eating, not the quantity?
In the BBC2 documentary I saw yesterday (can't remember name) there were a group of fruitarians and they spoke to a doctor who said that wasn't healthy which is fairly understandably, but for the calorie restriction dieters who only ate raw food or fruit, vegetables and pulses and claimed longevity and perfect skin etc. there didn't seem to be any major health problem. From what they said, they were eating 30% fewer calories than TDEE.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It is unhealthy and very pointless. Once you get back to your regular routine you will just gain all the weight back. So might as well eat and exercise to live a proper and healthier life.
The info that the OP is referring to are people who eat VLC for life. These people aren't dieting to a goal weight like those here. They believe, and there is supporting evidence, that it increases longevity and offers other health benefits. There is a group called CRON that supports the lifestyle. They LIKE it and advocate nutrient dense food along with exercise. There isn't an average intake, so it ranges up to the amounts we would be ok with eating.
I saw a couple on 60 minutes a long time ago that do this and they looked terrible! Apparently their health was tip-top, but emaciated is not the look I'm going for.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 439 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions