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

SnuggleSmacks

I admit I skipped some pages in the middle, so I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm confused if the OP is asking about VLC diets (severe calorie restriction) or IF (intermittent fasting.) Those are very different things.

VLC diet obviously does not mean losing your appetite because of a cold for a few days...it means severely limiting calories for an extended period. It should NEVER be attempted without direct supervision by a qualified medical professional. The side effects can be severe and the patient should therefore have a condition serious enough to warrant attempting the VLC diet and should be consistently monitored.

IF, on the other hand, can be a good way for some people to create a calorie deficit. As long as you are consistently average a reasonable number of calories for the week, you're fine. In fact, recent studies have shown that fasting for 2-4 days can have a very positive impact on your immune system. This has been shown in lab mice and in a small human study which examined the impact of a fast on cancer patients, showing a protective effect against chemotherapy. Obviously, these studies are small and more research is needed, but it's compelling enough, and the possible side effects are minimal enough, that it is well worth exploring the occasional fast.

In fact, I'm considering a 3 day fast for this reason. I've always scoffed at the "cleanse" and "detox" juicers, and still believe whole-heartedly that my kidneys and liver are functioning and need no help from a juicer. But I would like to see if I can feel a difference after 3 days. I'm trying to find a copy of the original paper published on the human trial to see what the parameters were that they used....whether there was only water, or water plus juice, clear liquids, or what.

lemurcat12

christinev297 wrote: »

Just reading the sunday paper, and there's a snippet about a 117 year old woman. Her secret.... "lots of sleep and sushi"
I often read that getting enough sleep is so important when trying to lose weight. That's me stuffed then Because my sleeping, or lack thereof, has been terrible over the past 12mths!

I don't know about the claim that lack of sleep interferes with weight loss because cortisol, but IME a lack of sleep makes it FAR harder to stick to a deficit--I have no will power and am constantly wanting to eat to wake myself up (and much more likely to want refined carbs for the same reason). I can usually sub caffeine, but when I dropped caffeine earlier this year I was going over my calories constantly until I caught up on sleep again somewhat.

Christine_72

lemurcat12 wrote: »

christinev297 wrote: »

Just reading the sunday paper, and there's a snippet about a 117 year old woman. Her secret.... "lots of sleep and sushi"
I often read that getting enough sleep is so important when trying to lose weight. That's me stuffed then Because my sleeping, or lack thereof, has been terrible over the past 12mths!

I don't know about the claim that lack of sleep interferes with weight loss because cortisol, but IME a lack of sleep makes it FAR harder to stick to a deficit--I have no will power and am constantly wanting to eat to wake myself up (and much more likely to want refined carbs for the same reason). I can usually sub caffeine, but when I dropped caffeine earlier this year I was going over my calories constantly until I caught up on sleep again somewhat.

Thanks. That makes sense

neanderthin

In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though.

ana3067

neanderthin wrote: »

In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though.

Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.

neanderthin

ana3067 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though.

Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.

I didn't say deficit.

ana3067

neanderthin wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though.

Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.

I didn't say deficit.

calorie restriction generally means deficit (around here).

neanderthin

ana3067 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

ana3067 wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

In Japan but especially Okinawa they have an eating philosophy called Hara Hachi Bu where they basically restrict calories by eating until their 80% full and apparently this is the only society on earth that have calorie restriction built into their lifestyle. n=1's take a little time for the data to unfold though.

Eating until 80% full =/= calorie deficit. One can eat until 80% full even at a caloric surplus, because different macros affect satiety differently. They eat a ton of rice there, rice is not all that filling.

I didn't say deficit.

calorie restriction generally means deficit (around here).

Okinawa isn't around here, nor would they need to be.

marlanaperry

And then there are the people who live to 100 and claim they drank a can of dr. pepper every day. My husband's grandma eats horribly (large portions and high-fat meals) and drinks soda, but she's 88, has all of her mental facilities, and plays tennis in the Texas heat. I don't think we can peg down one proper way to eat and live to be 100. I figure, if you're miserable because you're restricting calories, what's the point of living to 100? I'd rather enjoy my life and maybe not live as long. That's not to say we should throw health out the window, but I know few people who eat that little and enjoy their life.

Still, I have heard that the fasting diet is good for you as long as you are making it up at some other points. I think it depends on your goals and making sure that you are being healthy (and everyone's version of healthy is different!) I do feel like some people on MFP get judgmental and think their way is the only way to lose weight healthily, but we're all different. If you feel weak and fatigued, you're not being healthy, but if you can restrict your calories two days a week and feel great while doing it, don't let anyone judge you for your healthy living.

Christine_72

The lady I mentioned in my post lives in Japan... A lot of the long lived people seem to come from there.

Merkavar

My 2 cents

I think the issue with low calorie diets is the intention behind them.

If for example your eating a well balanced nutritional diet that happens to be low cal, your ticking all the protein fat vitamin A calcium and other boxes then that's probably ok.

But a lot of people seem to think along the lines of, if I eat 500 less calories a day I will lose 1 pound so if I eat 1000 less I lose 2 pounds etc so there goal is fastest possible weightloss so they skip meals etc while not meeting their daily needs like iron or vitamins.

I think it's the 2nd option people have an issue with. The first option would require a bit of research I would expect, to find nutrient rich foods.

One could be healthy while the other not so much.

jgnatca

@christinev297‌ there are pockets of centenarians in several enclaves, including Seventh Day Adventists, Okinawans, Georgians, New Englanders, and Sicilians among others.

http://www.agewatch.org.uk/secrets-of-longevity/centenarian-studies/

JAT74

It's certainly intesting that many people live healthy long lives by restricting calories or fasting in one form or another.

In my case I am happy doing 5:2 because it can help with appetite on the non-fast days amount other advantages.

As for burning calories and logging correctly I will continue to underestimate my burns from exercise and to be honest I only use my HRM to keep an eye on my heart rate when training as I think it pushes me a little harder, so I'm not really focusing on the number shown at the end of the workout. The same with my Fitbit, ie. I know that if according to the Fitbit I've taken 15000 steps in a day that's much better than an average day when I'll only take 10000 etc. Again I do log my workouts separately on MFP from the Fitbit calories but at the end of most days my Fitbit tells me I've burned anything from 19000-23000 calories which I take witha pinch of salt as I am not eating back calories.

Regarding inaccuracies in food logging after years of calorie counting and dieting I am very good at judging portion sizes for most foods now so often I know how many grams are in something or how many calories which is why I sometimes log 0.5 of a 6" banana because three mouthfuls of a banana that size is pretty close in calories to what I've logged and it's really that small a quantity that I'm having.

Of course restaurant meals are never going to be 100% accurate and I know it's only an estimate but again, if I buy something from a shop and look at the packet and see the calorie numbers of the quantity I've had and then the following week I go to a restaurant and I have the same quantity (ie. 5 medium to small spare ribs each dipped once in BBQ sauce) then I know the calorie content is not going to be much more than the ribs of the same size I had in a similar sauce the previous week from a packet). I am also very very careful when I eat out and if I log 2 tablespoons of restaurant sour cream, I've literally taken two mouthfuls of natural sour cream from my plate.

Anyway as already said I'm going to reduce my calorie intake further and increase my exercise from today so I should start seeing some weight loss again soon.

Christine_72

23,000 calories! !?? How much do you have to do to earn that many calories?
I was proud of my 500 and something calorie burn fitbit gave me today for 15,000 steps. It took me all damn day to get those steps in.

isulo_kura

JAT74 wrote: »

Again I do log my workouts separately on MFP from the Fitbit calories but at the end of most days my Fitbit tells me I've burned anything from 19000-23000 calories which I take witha pinch of salt as I am not eating back calories.

I only burn 3000 when I run 20 miles! I think your fitbit maybe wrong

JAT74

Sorry I was half asleep! Mean 1900-2300!!! The most steps I've ever had is 19,800 which was on Saturday but normally it's between 9000 & 12000!

yarwell

JAT74 wrote: »

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.

Most 5:2 regimes advocate eating at TDEE on the 5 and restricting on 2, don't they ?

So in the above case 1460 * 5 + 500 * 2 = 8300 giving a weekly deficit of 1920 cals.

JAT74

Yes that's true, they do recommend eating at TDEE on non-fast days and up until now I thought my TDEE (sedentary) was a bit higher so I was eating 1550-1650 on my non-fast days but from what I've read on 5:2 forums a lot of people eat to their active TDEE which in my case should be around 1800-2200, however either way I'm not losing.

I could lower it to 1460 as that is what I've now figured out my active TDEE could well be, but as you've just pointed out the deficit still wouldn't be enough to lose 1lb per week so in this case I'm going to try and eat 1250 on non fast days which will increase the deficit a little more and hopefully I'll be able to lose that 1lb. The difference between 1250 and what I have been eating on my normal days is quite large so I am hoping it will be enough to get things moving. That combined with going lower carb should hopefully make a difference.

I know my TDEE will lower as I get closer to goal but once I reach my goal body fat % and weight I am hoping that I will be able to maintain on around 1400-1500 which I find a manageable number.