Why is calorie restriction considered to be so bad on MFP?

Options
2456789

Replies

  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    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.
  • LovelyIvy466
    LovelyIvy466 Posts: 387 Member
    Options
    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...
  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    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.

  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    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.
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    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.
  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ar9179
    ar9179 Posts: 374 Member
    Options
    hhnkhl wrote: »
    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.

  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    It's hard to say really. Again I think that comes down to personal experience. I have a strong opinion about permanent low cal dieting but for some, they seem to be OK and fine over the long time with that (perhaps their bodies are also portionate for that level of daily eating). Everyone has different eating habits, food preferences, exercise regimes, etc,.

    What about their mood? Was that discussed? When I fasted, it was just an attempt to try out a theory that one can burn fat first (vs working out after eating) not in an effort to change the # on the scale. My focus was fat reduction. I found I was successful but crabby. Super long term cal restriction (low cal not fasting) never ever worked for me, not when I was 120lbs and not when I was at my fittest of 160lbs.
  • JAT74
    JAT74 Posts: 1,078 Member
    Options
    ar9179, I agree, those people don't look particularly healthy but their numbers say they are. I personally wouldn't want to look like that either but they are supposedly able to outlive most of us who don't do that!

    Pu_239, of course if they were eating less than they needed to stay alive they wouldn't. Maybe it's a case of them eating just enough to stay alive, which is a little less then MFP recommends, I don't know. Maybe there's a point where the body is able to eat that little and not lose more weight if it's getting certain necessary nutrients I have no idea.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    Pu_239 wrote: »
    ar9179 wrote: »
    hhnkhl wrote: »
    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.
    CRONIES, Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition. Their health benefits is mostly due to a down regulation of metabolic rate.

    Thank you!!!! I've been racking my brain all morning trying to remember that term!!
  • Riggly27
    Riggly27 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    jwlester3 wrote: »
    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.html

    In this story here it lists their heights and weights along with the calories they consume and when you run that through a TDEE calculator it matches up. So I'm confused how they are calorie restricting??
  • GoPerfectHealth
    GoPerfectHealth Posts: 254 Member
    Options
    I understand what you are talking about. I have read about calorie restriction for longevity. I think it is hard to open the conversation here because some people view it as a fad, or as a fringe thing. Also because eating disorders are so prevalent, many do not want to seem to encourage fasting even when part of a carefully designed program.

    A few people have suggested groups where you might find a more carefully considered discussion. :smile:

    Good luck!
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,333 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    dixiewhiskey wrote: »
    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.

    Someone's still upset I see.

    Hey thanks for thinking of me! It's just a fact that everyone has different opinions and sometimes we fail to articulate them in a way that is supportive and appropriate. It happens. If you have to argue with me on that statement too then you just have way too much time on your hands.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    JAT74 wrote: »
    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.

    Did you ask them how they know how much they were eating? Were they weighing and using a tracking app or were they guessing? Did all of them that you asked that don't post on this forum give you the same answers to those questions?

    Did all of those people do 5:2 or no?
    Did you ask to see those people blood work testing results?
    Are you taking everyone's word for what they are telling you?

    Anecdata, but I saw a report... maybe it was 60 Minutes or Sunday Morning or one of those shows about what I think maybe she's talking about. This was a few years back, so my memory is fuzzy.

    It was a middle aged couple, and they were... I remember this... they were eating 1500 calories, and they were using a food scale.

    Where I'm confused with the OP's posting is that she talks about calorie restriction for longevity (a concept which I've heard of before) in one breath, then talks about people restricting very low for weight loss in another. And then she throws in fasting. So I'm not quite sure which one of those subjects she wants addressed.

    So, OP... which one of those three issues are you talking about? Very low calorie deficits for weight loss? Long-term calorie restriction for longevity? Or intermittent fasting?

  • sgthaggard
    sgthaggard Posts: 581 Member
    Options
    You won't die young, you'll just wish that you would.

Categories