Why is calorie restriction considered to be so bad on MFP?
Options
Replies
-
I think what the real issue in my case is that my TDEE is overestimated by the calculators so I am eating more than my body needs.
I think I remember a thread on this that you started before, and that certainly could be. If you want and have been logging long enough, why not ignore the calculators and calculate your TDEE from your calories and results to date: add up your calories for 28 days, add 3500 times pounds lost, and then divide the total by 28. Use that as your TDEE.0 -
Mint_Julep I exercise every single day for a minimum of 40 minutes, sometimes for up to 2 hours.
mamapeach910 you're right, my exercise calories are not in my calculations.
My TDEE based on sedentary is 1495 at my current weight, based on lightly active which I probably am since I got a fitbit a few weeks ago it's about 1800 (not taking into account any actual exercise calories).
I have been averaging 1300 calories per day eaten in total (not net).
This means that my deficit should already be at least 200 calories and at most 500 calories before I even factor in the extra calories I'm burning off every day through exercise. I have only had 1 day off doing any physical exercise since 5th January, though I try and give my body a rest on Sundays by doing a walk of at least an hour rather than anything more strenuous.0 -
There are very few peer reviewed scientific papers proving (or even indicating) anything about diet.christinev297 wrote: »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 -
Lemurcat12 that sounds like a good idea, I haven't thought of that. Taking this month as an example that would make my TDEE 1460 which is much lower than calculators put me at as that also takes into account the exercise I've been doing.
To lose weight at a minimum rate of 1lb per week, I'd therefore have to eat 960 calories per day which is below what MFP recommends. Over the course of a week that means I'd have to eat 500 calories on my fast days and 1144 on my non-fast days taking into account I'm following 5:2.
It is possible but I think it will be hard to go that low. I might try and aim for 1250 on my non-fast days instead and see if that helps.
0 -
Not anymore, he's been dead for 4 years. I wouldn't say 83 years is a long life span.GoPerfectHealth wrote: »A little piece of trivia: Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the famous advocate for physician assisted suicide follows a 500 calorie "calorie-restricted" diet.
0 -
Lemurcat12 that sounds like a good idea, I haven't thought of that. Taking this month as an example that would make my TDEE 1460 which is much lower than calculators put me at as that also takes into account the exercise I've been doing.
To lose weight at a minimum rate of 1lb per week, I'd therefore have to eat 960 calories per day which is below what MFP recommends. Over the course of a week that means I'd have to eat 500 calories on my fast days and 1144 on my non-fast days taking into account I'm following 5:2.
It is possible but I think it will be hard to go that low. I might try and aim for 1250 on my non-fast days instead and see if that helps.
On those numbers I'd aim for .5 lbs/week.0 -
To those people who ask about measuring food and logging accurately I can confirm that I am extremely anal about such matters so yes. Other than the fact that food labels may not be 100% accurate, I weigh and measure absolutely everything and as I work from home I am able to do so for the majority of things I eat. If it seems like there are some strange measures in there there is always a reason for it. For example I use repeat entries as I eat a lot of the same foods several times a week so I either use it as it was logged previously if it's the same quantity each time or adjust if I have more or less. For example if I have 100g of heritage cottage cheese on one day and the next day I only have 70g left in the pot I'll measure out that amount and log it as a percentage of the original amount ie. 0,7 or change it to 70 x 1g etc. It's irrelevant what the MFP database says ie. on rounded scoop of protein 44g because I look at the label which says 44g per scoop and measure out that exact amount and drink it. I then find a matching entry in the MFP database where the numbers match up etc.
Secondly regarding calorie burns, I have a HRM and when I do a workout I look at the MFP database as well as what my HRM says. For example if I do one of my workout DVDs I'll log it as circuit training as it is interval training and if MFP says 350 calories burned but my HRM says 300 I'll normally log 275 so I'm not overestimating. Most days I do both a walk and a workout so the minimum my calorie burns can be in any one day is 400 calories and a lot of days I do more than that like a 2 hour walk plus a workout or a 45 minute cardio session in the gym plus circuit training etc.
It's irrelevant anyway because I calculate the weekly calorie deficit I need to be able to lose at least 0.5lb per week (without exercise), work out my fast day calories and then from that work out what my non-fast day calories should be. I then eat that amount, not above, regardless of the exercise I do so I don't eat anything extra back. The average I'm eating if split evenly across the week works out to 1300 per day.
This means that most days my deficit is a minimum of 500-600 calories, sometimes more, which should allow me to lose at least 1lb per week, but that hasn't been happening except in the first month when I lost 5.5lbs, the second month I lost 2lbs and this month 1lb.
Have you changed your setting in mfp?
You may want to set the weight loss to 1/2pd per week... is you new weight in there.. seditary etc...
so you are going by weekly calories instead of daily, which is fine... get the deficit any way you wish.
The only way you could not be losing over a month is eating more than thought, exercise calorie burn, medical reason.
I find the weight loss slows down the closer you get to your goal. 1-2 pd a month.
GOOD LUCK TO YOU0 -
I might try and aim for 0.75 per week and increase exercise a little and hopefully I'll hit that 1lb weekly loss.
I definitely can't be eating more than I think, exercise calorie burns are not too low and I already know there's no medical problem. As already said, my TDEE is just lower than I have been lead to believe until now.
Re. MFP calories, I set my calories manually so they come out to what I need to eat to be able to lose weight weight without exercise. Regardless of that I ignore the MFP numbers at the end of the day anyway and eat the amount I think I should every day to lose weight, which has been around 1600 on non-fast days.
I am now going to start trying to eat 1250-1300 on non fast days so I average less than before and see if I start to lose again.0 -
-
The only things that documentaries prove is that documentary makers have agendas.0
-
Ok, get off your high horse! I have come across several posts where people say things like 'don't eat 500 calories on any day of the week' or 'intermittent fasting is really not safe' etc. etc.
As for calorie restriction, I was specifically talking about calorie restriction by 30% or more on a regular basis which is generally not considered healthy on MFP if you have a low TDEE, though this does not take into account that TDEE calculators are based on estimates and some people actually have a much lower TDEE (and BMR) therefore have to eat less than the calculators which are based on averages after all, tell them to eat in order to restrict by enough to lose.0 -
OP if you have a FitBit, what does that tell you as far as your TDEE? Also why do you keep talking about TDEE without exercise? The point of TDEE is to include exercise and get a daily average calorie burn, which your FitBit should give you a rough idea. I find mine to be fairly accurate and definitely more accurate than the online calculators...0
-
If people could achieve a bit of longevity by cutting off their genitals and being sad 75% of their waking lives, I'm sure there are people who would do it.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
0 -
As I understand it, the 2:5 diet (and other fasting diets) are more effective if you don't restrict calories on the other days.I might try and aim for 0.75 per week and increase exercise a little and hopefully I'll hit that 1lb weekly loss.
I definitely can't be eating more than I think, exercise calorie burns are not too low and I already know there's no medical problem. As already said, my TDEE is just lower than I have been lead to believe until now.
Re. MFP calories, I set my calories manually so they come out to what I need to eat to be able to lose weight weight without exercise. Regardless of that I ignore the MFP numbers at the end of the day anyway and eat the amount I think I should every day to lose weight, which has been around 1600 on non-fast days.
I am now going to start trying to eat 1250-1300 on non fast days so I average less than before and see if I start to lose again.
If you are having to go so low, has it occurred to you that some other method (for example, low-carb) might work better?
0 -
Firstly, I was just asking a general question after having seen/read a lot of information about this subject recently, and wondered as a user of MFP and someone who reads the forums why calorie restriction or IF in general was not approved of by a lot of people on here. Not only for weight loss reasons but also for reasons of health.
Secondly, I was just making a point of saying that I personally follow 5:2 fasting but that I am not losing much weight despite restricting calories and exercising quite a bit. I made this point to show that for some people even with moderate calorie restriction using any method it's not enough to provoke significant weight loss.
If you weigh 138 pounds how much 'significant weight loss' would you think you need to obtain?
0 -
I'm doing 5:2 for the health benefits to both myself and more importantly my boyfriend as so far he's managed to lower his cholesterol level in just a few weeks from high to normal levels. I find it also allows me to eat a little more on non-fast days rather than eating less every day of the week which I find difficult to stick to.
As for my weight, I want to get down to around 115lbs and under 20% body fat. I'm very small framed (have tiny wrists, ankles, hips and waist measurements already) but I am currently carrying approx. 31% body fat which I know is not very healthy. When I try and estimate my weight at 20% my weight comes out at about 115lbs.0 -
Maybe the answer to the question has to do with lawyers. If someone was to get sick and die from fasting, I'd be willing to bet a box of donuts that a surviving family member would find a way to litigate damages against MFP. It's far safer to encourage a member to eat a little food daily than it is to recommend fasting. Someone somewhere will find a way to get injured and then the lawyers step in.0
-
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.
I am not familiar with your fancy term but if that's what you're doing then I think it's fine. It would be silly for MFPers to reject calorie restriction, because it's awfully difficult to lose weight at maintenance.0 -
1- Eating at 30% less than TDEE would result in weight loss. You seem to be missing what TDEE means. You can't eat at less than TDEE in the long term because you would die when you ran out of energy reserves and your body had finally cannibalized all the other tissues it could.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.
B- What exactly is your definition of "healthy" since good health is rather important, not just to longevity but quality of life as well. What could these people do with their "healthy" bodies?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions