Doctor says 1500 calories is too drastic

leebesstoad

Medical school itself is 4 years long, then there is the residency portion which ca nvary anywhere from 3-8 years, depending on how specialized. "nutritionist" isn't a "specialty" and no , as far as i know nutrition isn't covered as much as it could be and last i heard, they're making efforts to include more. Nutrionists are "below" Dietitians and that is a masters or doctoral programs. Medical school is a professional school, not really graduate school in that sense.

This is just what I kind of know as a pre-med

This is true. I am in medical school planning on going into family medicine. Medical school is 4 years, Family Medicine residency is 3 (so 7 years). Nutrition was one of our classes first year. It was about half the length of a "normal" class (genetics, anatomy, etc). It is also covered on the national boards though not in great detail.

Any doctor will know as much about nutrition as they educate themselves on. Not every doctor sits around thinking what they learned in medical school will cut it. Many people continue to do research and stay up to date, many do not. The best bet is to find a doctor you trust and that you believe continues to educate themselves beyond their medical school education or to see a nutritionist/dietician.

But you would agree that the RDs are the experts? They are the ones the docs tuirn to? There is a reason why every newly diagnosed diabetics is encouraged to meet with an RD to review diet, and why they are used as an ongoing resource for all diabetics.

It's one reason I love my gym and the fact that they have an RD on staff for consults (yes it's extra and you pay for it) with members who want it to help them plan a diet. And it's why she loves it because she gets to work with the clients and the personal trainers in a ongoing real-world situation that most RDs don't.

With all the info that FPs have to keep up on, keeping up on nutrition, is unfortunately, going to remain a low priority except for those few docs that have a personal interest in it.

BCKWilke2013

Did the docs say why? How tall are you both? I'm wondering because I'm just under 5"4" and can't seem to stay below 1300 cals - I just like eating too much. My weight loss has been REAL slow, and was considering going even lower if I could stand it. I walk about 5-6 times a week for about an hour at a pretty fast pace and hope that's helping.

Do you do other exercises besides walking? Just like eating, you have to have a variety in your exercise because after awhile your muscles get used to your work out routine and will burn less and less calories. Try doing some aerobics, a little bit of strength training or even a bike ride, that way you are working out different muscle groups and will lose more weight and you won't plateau. You also have to remember as you exercise you are boosting your metabolism and your body actually needs more calories to function.....if you eat to few calories you are actually putting your body into starvation mode where it becomes highly resistant in letting go any calories, fat, etc. Hope this helps

Vailara

I think that 1500 is very reasonable for most people. But not everyone. At 5'1" with the frame I have, 1500 is my maintenance mode. At one time not too long ago I was eating around 2,000 and managed to gain 20 lbs. in a relatively short period of time. Just one of the downfalls of being short with a small frame. Right now I'm eating 1200-1300, which I think is reasonable for someone my size. And I'm losing at about the rate that MFP predicted for me.

ETA: Oh yeah, and I always eat back my exercise calories. It would be really hard not to.

Same here. I'm eating around 1500 to lose at the moment, but it's very slow and eventually I'm going to have to drop down, as 1500 total will be maintenance level for me closer to goal. If sedentary, maintenance will be around 1350. It's going to be hard! One size doesn't fit all

However, I read in one of my diet books (I think it was the Beck Diet) that you should never go below 1500 because it's too difficult AT MAINTENANCE. So if you're eating 1500 calories a day and not losing weight, you have to accept your current weight as your maintenance weight. I can see the sense in it - I think the idea is that it's better to eat 1500 calories for life and maintain an "overweight" weight, than to eat 1350 calories for a year to maintain a "healthy" weight but end up giving up and yo-yo dieting. I've been thinking about this a lot recently because I'm at the stage where I'll have to go below 1500 if I want to keep losing, but I'm still very overweight.

VegKate

Did the docs say why? How tall are you both? I'm wondering because I'm just under 5"4" and can't seem to stay below 1300 cals - I just like eating too much. My weight loss has been REAL slow, and was considering going even lower if I could stand it. I walk about 5-6 times a week for about an hour at a pretty fast pace and hope that's helping.

I'm 5'8", I can't remember the why the doctor gave, other than my body needs at least 1500 just to maintain it's various processes.

StarChanger

Your Dr. Didn't spend 9 yrs in Medical school just for Fun.
Listen to your Dr.

If your doctor spent 9 years in med school, I would recommend getting a different doctor. Med school is 4 years max.

I think they were talking med school + residency + fellowship = 9 years.

This...plus add in 4+ years of college +/- grad school in the top 1%, generally.

MeIShouldB

how heavy and/or tall are all of you? if you don't mind me asking. i'm at 150 and 5'4. should I still be coming in at 1200?

Don't mind at all. I'm 24, 5'5 and currently 191 (started at 224)

lavaughan69

I agree with them. I personally developed gallstones and required emergency surgery after 8 weeks on a 1200 calorie diet. I don't want to assume that was the reason, but it seems possible-- check out this news story from 3 days ago. The lower your calories, the greater the risk of gallstones, apparently.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/07/us-crash-diet-gallstone-idUSBRE95615J20130607

Did you read the article correctly? It said there was an increase in gallstones on CRASH dieters, not low calorie. MFP doesn't recommend less than 1200 calories and certainly not crash dieting.

"Their study included 6,640 dieters, half of whom went on a crash diet and the other half of whom went on a low calorie diet.

The crash diet involved liquid meals of just 500 calories a day for six to 10 weeks, followed by the gradual introduction of normal food, and then nine months of a weight maintenance regime of exercise and healthy eating.

The other dieters ate 1,200 to 1,500 calories a day, including two liquid meals, for three months, followed by the nine month weight maintenance period."

Balance_Breathe

I did read it correctly-- it said there were also problems with gallstones among the 1200-1500 group, just not as many.

Hey, I'm no expert, just sharing an experience I had. If I'm honest, I want to try taking my own calories down since I'm only 5'4" and have a lot to lose. Just makes me a little nervous after what happened before.